When Christian voters enter the voting booth on Tuesday they must realize that by voting against President Barack Obama, they are not rejecting the Civil Rights movement, or Abraham Lincoln, or Martin Luther King, Jr., or Christian beliefs.

Rather, it is President Obama who has betrayed the very movement that so many thought he would lead. He has abandoned the Civil Rights’ moral and Christian base, embracing practices that pit him against American and African black Christians while he aligns with their secular detractors.

Recall that the Civil Rights movement of the 1960s, and the Abolitionist movement that preceded it by more than 100 years, were both fundamentally religious movements founded on Christianity.

“An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law,” argued Martin Luther King, Jr. in his famous “Letter from a Birmingham Jail.”

“When Martin Luther King, Jr. confronted racism in the white church in the South, he did not call on Southern churches to become more secular,” writes Timothy Keller in his book The Reason for God: Belief in an Age of Skepticism. “He invoked God’s moral law and the Scripture. He called white Christians to be more true to their own beliefs and to realize what the Bible really teaches. He did not say ‘Truth is relative and everyone is free to determine what is right or wrong for them.’ If everything is relative, there would have been no incentive for white people in the South to give up their power….[King] knew the antidote to racism was not less Christianity, but a deeper and truer Christianity.”

“No subsequent marriage of Christian faith and political activism has come close to matching Martin Luther King’s ability to use the language of Scripture to break down ideological barriers and transcend partisan divides,” says Ross Douthat in Bad Religion.

Just as Uncle Tom – the faithful Christian hero of Harriet Beecher Stowe’s historic novel – had his name later twisted into an ugly insult, so too, has the Civil Rights movement lost its spiritual foundation. The rejection of the heroic transforming love of Uncle Tom is a rejection of the crucified Christ; for Tom is the suffering servant who takes on the abuse and torture of plantation owner Simon Legree for the salvation and freedom of his fellow slaves. Once the Civil Rights movement abandoned God, it was co-opted by the “diversity movement,” and adopted the illegitimate cousins it was never meant to represent: abortion, radical feminism, and homosexuality.

For President Obama, his “civil rights movement” is a neo-sexual revolution: unlimited access to tax-payer funded birth control, widespread abortion when contraceptives fail, and the mandated redefinition of marriage.

In the October 16th Presidential debate, President Obama advocated for Planned Parenthood – the country’s leading abortion provider – five times. The Lena Dunham campaign ad for President Obama uses sexual language to equate voting for him with taking him to bed. Who is really waging the “war on women?”

Rather than speaking for the black man, the president has advocated, cooperated, and expanded the killing of African-American children through his support of abortion, a practice that destroys two out of every three black children in New York alone. Rather than supporting the black family, he has embraced the desacralization of all marriages through his advocacy for homosexual coupling, a practice which the African-American community overwhelmingly rejects.

The Civil Rights movement – that great Biblical movement – has been turned on its head.

“There was a time when the church was very powerful – in the time when the early Christians rejoiced at being deemed worthy to suffer for what they believed,” wrote King while imprisoned. “In those days the church was not merely a thermometer that recorded the ideas and principles of popular opinion; it was a thermostat that transformed the mores of society.”

“By their effort and example they brought an end to such ancient evils as infanticide and gladiatorial contests,” King continued.

For those who love such words and understand the Civil Rights movement as the religious cement of our nation, we must render our judgment if our first black president is more thermometer or thermostat?

Early in Uncle Tom’s Cabin, the slave hunter Marks exchanges words with the slave trader Haley.

“If we could get a breed of gals that didn’t care, now, for their young uns,” said Marks; “tell ye, I think ‘t would be ‘bout the greatest mod’rn improvement I know on.”

The sexual left is not the civil rights movement. It has made its peace with the evil of infanticide. Instead of bringing an end to the evil, the sexual revolutionaries want it readily available and paid for by all. How ironic and demonic that this new movement, and its spokesman the president, have effectively borrowed the slave hunter Marks’ philosophy and convinced a “breed of gals” not to care for “their young uns.” Our nation has paid a dire price.

Later, in the novel’s climactic scene, Tom tells Legree that he may be able to take his body, but he will never be able to take his soul.

As we enter the voting booth on Tuesday, help end this pathetic masquerade. The Biblical character of the true Civil Rights movement is under attack from an unlikely source. Let us not betray the noblest events of our nation’s history.

You cannot discriminate against something that does not exist. i.e. gay marriage. Since this discussion is going round in circles, we will just have to agree to disagree.

Posted by Peter Blaise on Saturday, Dec, 15, 2012 9:58 PM (EDT):

Savvy, the examples you shared are relativism and rationalizations—nothing wrong with any of that—and they were not common sense, rather, they are someone’s opinions and preferences.
-
I don’t care, except for the hypocrisy of then calling other people’s relativism, rationalizations, “common sense”, opinions, and preferences wrong because they are relativism, rationalizations, “common sense”, opinions, or preferences. I don’t care one way or the other.
-
All I care about are accuracy and appropriateness.
-
I don’t care what someone believes; I only care how they behave towards others. Period.
-
MARRIAGE: Millions of people cannot hold that a marriage is anything because a marriage is between two people not millions of people.
-
It doesn’t matter if it’s common sense or law or civil rights: no one’s marriage is anyone else’s business.
-
How hard is that to grok?
-
If someone else’s marriage is none of your business, then it doesn’t matter to you what their genders are—you are not going to reproduce with them anyway, so what do you care?
-
Hate is a collect-all term for people who behave hateful, such as for those who interfere with someone else’s marriage, right to marry, and marriage benefits.
-
If you deny a married couple Federal Social Security survivor benefits because you disapprove of their marriage, it doesn’t matter if you do it with holy love or unholy hate: it has the same effect either way, so calling bigotry and invasion of other people’s privacy and infliction of your personal preferences as restrictions on others love or hate doesn’t change the outcome.
-
Do deny anyone the human right to partner and build a family is hateful. Period.
-
“... I do this hateful thing to you because I love you? ...”
-
Seriously?
-
Is that how you see Catholic support for equal civil rights for all playing out?
-
If we smile and say “it’s holy love” then we can get away with any discriminatory mistreatment of others?
-
ABORTION: The question is not whether or not abortion (killing, as you say) is a woman’s right, but the civil rights question is: who has a superior right over the internal integrity of someone else’s body?
-
THE POPE: The Pope had an opportunity to condemn and influence his followers and admirers to never ever assess anyone else’s gender as any of their business—the Bishops sure took advantage of any opportunity to broadcast their bigoted opinions across the US in Congress and in the press. The fact that their Pope not only stood silence in the face of such evil, but blessed the perpetrator is telling.
-
I have not politicized everything, and Barack Obama has not let down the Civil Rights movement.
-
But we do see very clearly who has politicized religion and who is fighting against civil rights.

Posted by savvy on Saturday, Dec, 15, 2012 9:27 AM (EDT):

Peter,

These examples I gave you are not relativism, but just common sense. Millions of people worldwide hold that marriage is between a man and a woman. To excuse them of hate or bigotry based on minority views of marriage is what is exclusive. I just do not see abortion (killing) as women’s rights, regardless of how that world is phrased. I am aware of the hoopla over Pope Benedict and the Ugandan woman, but her visit had no relation to the bill, and neither did the Pope’s blessing.

What you do not realize is that African religions/culture in general are opposed to certain things. The West cannot impose it’s values on them. I do not support the bill, but I can understand why Africans feel distraught by Western hubris.

Posted by Peter Blaise on Saturday, Dec, 15, 2012 7:42 AM (EDT):

Thank you, savvy, for explaining.
-
I understand your “views”, but I do not understand what you think we all should do, actually DO, then, as Catholics, as we behave and manifest our participation into the real world of civil and criminal laws, and, according to this thread, into the arena of civil rights, specifically, equal civil rights for gays and women, that is, equal civil rights for everyone without regard to their gender.
-
The call for anti-relativism in this thread baffles me, especially when it’s supported by relativistic rationalizations, such as:
-
“... opposed, to the death penalty, except in [ certain relative ] circumstances ...”
-
“... war as the last resort, when all other [ relative efforts ] have failed ...”
-
“... Abortion is intentional and direct killing [ relative to ] indirect abortion based on the principle of double effect [ throw in some self defined jargon and gobbledygook there ] ...”
-
... and so on, and earlier in this thread,
-
“... arguments in favor of homosexuality [ relative to ] divine and natural law [ relative to ] the Bible and the Church [ and ] Jewish and Christian (not to mention Muslim [ but, you just mentioned Muslim! ]) writers ...”
-
“... [ yet, relative to ] unjust discrimination ... should be avoided [ relative to what, “unavoidable just discrimination”? see TA’s lengthly Catechism dump above ] ...”
-
... and on, and on, ad infinitum, ad nauseum.
-
Those are all relativistic rationalizations trying to turn people’s pre-existing fears of imagined “other” into reasons, justifications for their fears after the fact.
-
Instead, why not try accurate reason first, turned into loving behavior second, and let the feelings follow what is right, such as, “... your gender is none of my business, therefore I have no thoughts, feelings, nor behaviors concerning your gender ...”
-
Or ...
-
“... Pope Benedict XVI yesterday blessed Rebecca Kadaga, the Speaker of the Uganda Parliament who promised to pass the “Kill The Gays” bill as a “Christmas gift” to Uganda’s Christians. Kadaga was at the Vatican to meet the Pope and to attend the seventh Consultative Assembly of Parliamentarians for the International Criminal Court and the World Parliamentary Conference on Human Rights.”
-
Is THAT the way Catholics are to manifest our Catholicness in a civil society?
-
I understand precisely why Catholics are conflicted on how to emulate the stories of Jesus teaching how to behave lovingly and not see anyone as broken, versus the Catholic Church hierarchy’s examples.

Posted by savvy on Thursday, Dec, 13, 2012 3:43 PM (EDT):

Peter,

I do my best to articulate my views on issues. You have simply not come up with any non-relatvistic reasons for your positions.

Posted by Peter Blaise on Thursday, Dec, 13, 2012 1:19 PM (EDT):

Thanks for your summary clarifications on what “the church holds”, savvy.
-
Are you saying that a parent’s responsibility for their child gives them superior rights over that child?
-
Are you saying a parent’s responsibility for their child gives then superior rights over their child over and above society’s interests and rights?
-
Are you saying society has a superior right over the parent before birth (no contraceptives or abortion), but parents have superior rights after birth (teaching their kids to deny themselves and be anti social, to be anti themselves and anti other members of their society), and society should then back off?
-
How is giving up a child for adoption an expression of Catholic parental responsibility?
-
And so on.
-
I’m asking you to relate your understanding of Church teachings to how we as Catholics should each be informed by our own (perhaps different) understanding of them, and then, how we should each take personal responsibility for our own behavior regarding how we each think our understanding of that teaching directs us to respect, or not, other’s civil rights as equal, or not, to our own civil rights in a civil society.
-
For example, if killing innocents in an otherwise “just war” (who decides?) is unacceptable, then, do we wait for the Bishops to march on Washington to stop aerial and drone bombing, or do we as Catholics demand that no Catholics be permitted to participate in that war, or that no taxes be collected from Catholics for that war, and that’s enough, or what should we do?
-
And so on, for every civil rights issue raised in this thread.
-
How does our understanding of our own Catholicness inform us how to behave and create laws for everyone, especially given the various levels of arguable rationals regarding personal moral choices?
-
Should we as Catholics then inflict our own personal choices on each other, and on others via non-religious, non-Catholic civil and criminal laws?
-
Take it to the next level, savvy: given your beliefs, or your interpretation of the Church’s teachings, how should you then behave, personally, and how should you inflict what laws on yourself and others?

Posted by savvy on Tuesday, Dec, 11, 2012 7:32 PM (EDT):

Peter,

The church holds that parents are stewards in ensuring the formal and spiritual formation of kids who are under the age of reason, and who live under their roof, not adult kids.

Yes, a fetus is part of a woman’s body, but has it’s own DNA, own blood group, and it’s own genetic identity scientifically.

The church is opposed, to the death penalty, except in circumstances where, the person poses a serious dangers to others. The rules of just war do not include targeting unarmed civilians or those who cannot defend themselves. Doing so would classify as a war crime. It also sees war as the last resort, when all others have failed.

Abortion is the intentional and direct killing of a human being unable to defend themselves, except in cases where it is an indirect abortion based on the principle of double effect.

Posted by Peter Blaise on Monday, Dec, 10, 2012 9:36 PM (EDT):

Earlier, savvy wrote, “... if my neighbour
wants to keep slaves ...”
-
Peter Blaise responds: (a) Are you not from around here (the US), if you spell neighbor as neighbour? If not, then why the ardent participation on a US Civil Rights thread? Just asking. You’re welcome regardless, but of course I’m curious under what political system you live and what is the influence and power of any religious institution in your neck of the woods.
-
(b) “Slave” implies a separate individual within the state’s jurisdiction and not within someone else’s body outside the state’s jurisdiction, so perhaps your analogy is apples-and-oranges, eh what?
-
Earlier, savvy wrote, “... abortion is murder ...”
-
Peter Blaise responds: Here’s where we get into differences of opinion and jurisdiction.
-
No one argues that abortion isn’t killing something.
-
The word “murder”, however refers to killing a separate individual, and is perfectly all right according to Catholic hierarchy when it comes to war, the death penalty, innocent “collateral damage” in war, self defense, accident, and so on.
-
In other words: relative and conditional.
-
So even if you could get others to agree on the use of the word “murder”, which you cannot, you then could not get others to agree on the definition and moral or legal ramifications of murder relative to each condition.
-
And then there’s the disagreements on the assignment of jurisdiction, and then ... a mess, I tell you, a mess.
-
That is why I suggest that folks spend their time preventing unwanted pregnancies instead of trying to outlaw wanted abortions.
-
But feel free to advocate for your preference one way or the other. Carry on.
-
Earlier, savvy wrote, “... marriage is a
social institution, changing it has
consequences for the culture ...”
-
Peter Blaise responds: Yes, making it more inclusive of every member of society getting respect and support for their family and their children.
-
It’s called civil rights.
-
What is it about your Catholicness that tells you that marriage should exclude some folks, that their families and children deserve second class citizenship, or that others deserve not to have families and children at all?
-
Earlier, savvy wrote, “... consequences for
... parental rights ...”
-
Oh, I look forward to you explaining how you believe that parents have superior rights over individuals who are separate from them, but parents have no superior rights over non-individuals who are not separate from them.
-
Are you saying that parents should be free from societal interference and have free reign over their children after birth, but parents should be subordinate to society and constrained by others before their children’s birth?
-
Does this fall into a similar conundrum as murder being wrong, but okay in may circumstances, so too is a parent free to do with their child whatever they want, except in certain circumstances?
-
Are we just arguing over price, so to speak, now that we have agreed that every behavior is essentially for sale at some level?
-
Go ahead, tell me how Catholic teaching says that, before birth, parents have no control over their children and must be subordinate to society, but, after birth, parents have total independence from society and total control over their children.
-
Or is everything relative and conditional after all, open to the kind of endless debate we are having here, as we speculate what Jesus might have encouraged each of us to do for ourselves and to do for each other?
-
... including respecting other’s civil rights as equal to our own regardless of their gender, regardless of the choices we make for ourselves.

Posted by savvy on Sunday, Dec, 9, 2012 11:05 PM (EDT):

“Why would anybody even pay attention to the choices other people make,
I presume, to the choices other people make for themselves? If I like red
bicycles, or not, what do you care? If you like blue convertibles, or not,
what do I care? If he likes women, or not, what do either of us care? If she
wants to prevent or end an unwanted pregnancy inside her own body, or not,
why would anybody want the people in our government to care?”

People are not things. We love people and use things. Not the other way around. It’s like saying if my neighbour wants to keep slaves that is okay, why should I care, it’s their business.

If abortion is murder it’s not just a choice like choosing a different hair colour. In the same way, if marriage is a social institution, changing it has consequences for the culture, for laws, for parental rights etc.

Please look up what the church’s definition of love and respect and differences is and why it’s at odds with some things in the current civil rights movement.

A lot of speeches sound good, but what do they mean.

Posted by Peter Blaise on Sunday, Dec, 9, 2012 10:34 PM (EDT):

Earlier, savvy wrote, “... People are to be
treated with love and respect ...”
-
Peter Blaise responds: Okay, let’s go with that regardless of the origin, be it self taught, the Pope, Jesus, or some political campaign propaganda or civil rights movement preaching, it doesn’t matter to me where it comes from, let’s treat everyone with love and respect. Got it. No argument here.
-
Continuing, savvy wrote, “... However, this
does not mean that one has to agree with
choices people make ...”
-
Peter Blaise responds: O… k… a… y… b-b-but I’m not sure what you mean. Why would anybody even pay attention to the choices other people make, I presume, to the choices other people make for themselves? If I like red bicycles, or not, what do you care? If you like blue convertibles, or not, what do I care? If he likes women, or not, what do either of us care? If she wants to prevent or end an unwanted pregnancy inside her own body, or not, why would anybody want the people in our government to care?
-
Savvy, I’m not sure where you are going with this “agreeing with choices people make”—their own choices are their business and no one else’s business, just as your choices are your business and none of my business, and of course, my choices are none of your business or any one else’s business. Is that just something I feel or something I feel because I am informed by my Catholicness or by the Pope or by inspiration from stories of Jesus or from political campaigns or from some non-governmental civil rights movement preaching? I don’t know or care where it comes from, it’s just the way I think and feel, and that’s all that should matter for me, or for you, or for anyone, ever. No one should ever have to justify the choices they make for themselves to anyone else, ever.
-
However, in this thread, based on Catholic’s points of views, I choose to include origins, specifically, any inference of Jesus, and anything that purports to cascade down from Jesus is suspect as not being origin material, so I try to go back to what would Jesus think, feel, and do in order to confirm for myself how I might prefer to think and feel and believe and act. I suppose we each have out thresholds of personal responsibility. That is mine.
-
Anyway, savvy, why do you pay attention to other people’s choices for themselves? Is it because of your Catholicness, or some other reason?
-
Continuing, savvy wrote, “... Why won’t the
diversity dictators accept difference?
Practise what you preach ...”
-
Peter Blaise responds: “... diversity dictators ...” is quite an image, quite an imagination. But, I think the definition of a dictator is anti-diversity, non-acceptance of differences, anti-civil-rights.
-
Instead, I like to think about voluntary, self-inspired “love and respect” to “accept difference”, as you suggest, what do you think about that? There are so many ways to conceive of what’s the right thing to do, but following a dictator, or being a dictator, well, those images seem so limiting. Setting a good example, now that’s a great idea. I like that.
-
Savvy, on point, way down here at this end of the thread, we seem to agree that love and respect and acceptance of differences is a good thing, and I presume we are both here because of our Catholic upbringing, and so, to see all of that together - Catholicness, love, respect, acceptance of differences—seems perfect to me. You?
-
Well, isn’t that what the civil rights movement is all about, for everyone?

Posted by savvy on Sunday, Dec, 9, 2012 5:19 PM (EDT):

Peter Blaise,

People are to be treated with love and respect. However, this does not mean that one has to agree with choices people make. Why won’t the diversity dictators accept difference? Practise what you preach.

Posted by Peter Blaise on Sunday, Dec, 9, 2012 12:17 PM (EDT):

Earlier, savvy wrote, “... I just do not share
your defintion of equality or respect,
which are wrapped in political lingo ...”
-
So, savvy, what are your definitions of equality and respect, then?
-
And, apropos this thread, how do our definitions of equality and respect come from our Catholicness, and then how do we project our views and beliefs into our society as we all just try to get along?
-
And, I thought I referenced stories about Jesus, but I suppose he may be thought of as the ultimate politician, especially with his quirky, provocative, contrarian parables, eh?
-
So, savvy, what do you think your Catholicness tells you about how to behave toward women and gays ... including women and gays who may be ourselves and other members of our Catholic community?

Posted by savvy on Thursday, Nov, 29, 2012 5:03 PM (EDT):

Peter,

I am aware of your views, I just do not share your defintion of equality or respect, which are wrapped in political lingo.

Posted by Peter Blaise on Wednesday, Nov, 28, 2012 3:58 AM (EDT):

Earlier, savvy wrote, “... You have
politicized everything including Jesus.
You are the money-changer ...”
-
Oh, so you were thinking of the “Jesus tosses the money changers from the temple” story when you were thinking of “tough love”?
-
Savvy, I re-read my posts and see only a call for one person at a time to respect one person at a time, without assessment or judgment.
-
More to the point, savvy, do you think Catholics are called by our Catholicism to to refrain from judging others, and to treat others as we wish to be treated? You know, to love well and often, the “charity” part of “faith, hope, and charity”?
-
The opening post and some responses seem to call for Catholics to judge others and treat others unequally, yet I can find no support for that in my understanding of my born-into, raised-by, and life-long Catholic experiences, in fact, I find the opposite, as I have shared.
-
Can you re-read and re-direct me to better understand your, I presume, indictment of the thoughts in my sharing?

Posted by savvy on Tuesday, Nov, 27, 2012 2:29 PM (EDT):

Peter,

You have politicized everything including Jesus. You are the money-changer.

Posted by Peter Blaise on Tuesday, Nov, 27, 2012 10:56 AM (EDT):

Again, revisiting the opening premise of “The Civil Rights Movement” recently being co-opted by gays, here’s a recent story about Bayard Rustin, the gay mentor and organizer of so much of the visible demonstrations and marches of Martin Luther King’s Civil Rights Movement:
-
From The DuluthNewsTribune . com November 27, 2012 by Steve Kuchera
-
Superior march honors civil rights movement’s ‘unsung hero’
-
A lesser-known but profoundly influential leader in the civil rights and nonviolence movements will be remembered and honored today at a march in Superior.
-
Bayard Rustin was the executive director of the 1963 March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom — best known for Martin Luther King Jr.’s “I Have a Dream” speech at the Lincoln Memorial. Born in 1912, Rustin died in 1987 at age 75.
-
“He was kind of an unsung hero,” said Julia Johnson, GLBT topics lead student at the University of Wisconsin-Superior Gender Equity Center. GLBT stands for gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender. The center, along with the UWS Alliance and the Black Student Union, are sponsoring today’s march.
-
“He did a lot of work with Martin Luther King Jr. and actually mentored him, but worked largely behind the scenes as an adviser to a lot of movements,” Johnson said of Rustin. “He planned some incredible things on his tenets of nonviolence and civil disobedience, and really made a huge difference in the civil rights movement.”
-
Over the years, Rustin — who was gay — often stayed in the background of events because of a 1953 arrest for a homosexual act.
-
“I’ve been disappointed that so few people even recognize his name these days,” Duluth resident Mary Alice Harvey said Monday ...
-

Posted by Peter Blaise on Tuesday, Nov, 27, 2012 1:28 AM (EDT):

Okay let’s get into it point by point, as an exploration of the range of our thoughts. Let’s chat.
-
Earlier, savvy wrote, “... The mandate is
basically saying that a Catholic
organization is not Catholic ...”
-
Correct, sort of. What they are saying is that religious freedom is personal, and does not extend as a superior rights when we enter into the public domain, especially when it comes to our legally regulate-able interactions with others. Anyone can believe and practice anything they want for themselves, but no one has a superior right to inflict their own personal beliefs as restrictions over the rights and behaviors of others, especially in commerce and employment.
-
When ANYONE enters the world of commerce and employment, when they enter into legal transaction with others, they obey the laws of commerce and employment, or as Jesus is reported to have said, “... give unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s ...” Claiming one’s Catholicness demands that one must discriminate in commerce and employment against others based on their gender or sexual preference just doesn’t hold legal standing ... and it makes no sense to this Catholic for any Catholic to say, “... I’m Catholic, and that gives me authority to discriminate in commerce and employment against the civil rights of women and gays, my Catholicness absolves me from being guilty of breaking civil rights law ...”. Nope, no way.
-
Also, savvy wrote, “... Jesus also preached
tough love, which included telling others
they were wrong when they were ...”
-
Seriously? Jesus of Nazareth, right? 2000 years ago Jesus of Nazareth, right? I believe the phrase “tough love” entered the English-speaking lexicon in the late 1960s, coined by someone other than Jesus of Nazareth.
-
Are you thinking of the story of Jesus throwing the money lenders out of the temple? Then I’m all for that, lets go and toss out all the money lenders from our churches; I think they are called Bishops, and Cardinals, and Popes. We Catholics don’t need no hierarchy; by all reports, Jesus had none, he was content to do his own preaching, and only sent his disciples off to preach after he left, including women disciples, and no comments were ever reported regarding their selection according to gender or sexual preference, and there was no endless chain of monied hierarchy when Jesus was around.
-
But, I don’t recall any stories of Jesus instructing anyone to judge, no, just the opposite, especially when Jesus was reported to have dispersed the crowd who wanted to stone a woman. Yeah, maybe we all should be like that. “... Let those without sin cast the first stone ... judge not that you not be judged ...” and so on. Catholics have some great inspiration to treat everyone with equivalent consideration, the basis for respecting everyone’s civil rights equally.
-
In fact, definitely the opposite of “... telling others they were wrong ...”, savvy. A way for me to understand the miracles of Jesus is that Jesus didn’t see anyone as broken, so those who thought they were blind could see when Jesus saw them as not broken, and those who thought they were sick got well when Jesus saw them as not broken, and so on. Contrary to your “tough love” impression, I see the stories of Jesus as release, forgiveness, healing, and seeing everyone as not broken, as a child, perhaps even as if each were his child, to be cared for, nurtured, and loved without condition, without assessment, to be seen as not broken in his eyes. Try it. You’ll like it.
-
Regardless, judging others is a personal, whimsical thing for anyone to do, and has no place in law; that is, your judgment or my judgment or the Pope’s judgment, especially of women and gays, or of each other, should not inform the law on what the government and those of us entering onto commerce and employment transactions with each other should do.
-
Also, savvy wrote, “... I also fed up of the
hysteria that the church is trying to take
over the govt. Nobody has the authority to do
this ...”
-
Go ahead and get fed up, it’s your right to feel and think anything you want to think and feel, regardless of the facts. But, yes, the Catholic Bishops want the government to express the Catholic Bishop’s preferences regarding contraception, abortion, and diminished, unequal rights for women and gays. That’s what this thread is about: the challenge to respect everyone’s equal civil rights, and the conflict between Catholic Bishops versus Obama as stand-in for we-the-people’s self-governance.
-
Also, savvy wrote, “... There is a difference
between tolerance and approval. It seems like
some groups want forced approval ...”
-
“Groups?” What “groups”? How about respecting everyone as an individual, fully equal to every other individual? And, I have no idea what you mean by “forced approval”, especially regarding equal respect for everyone’s civil rights and the law. Do you mean like, blacks or whites want forced approval, not just tolerance towards them? What does that mean?
-
Also, savvy wrote, “... I do not appreciate
you speaking for me as a woman either. There
are also gays who might disagree with you ...”
-
I agree 1,000%—no one speaks for another, especially the Bishops do not speak for any Catholic or anyone else but themselves. And your gender or sexual preference is none of my business even if I know what your gender or sexual preference is. That is the beauty of civil rights: equal respect for everyone regardless, even regardless of if we know their gender or their sexual preference. Just like we might know someone is black or white yet we do not use that as criteria for treating them differently, we must also ignore our awareness of someone’s gender or sexual preference, and treat everyone the same, with equivalent consideration, and of course, according to law, with equal protection and due process regardless of their gender or sexual preference, or any other perceived difference or similarity that is none of our business, and none of the government’s business.
-
Of course people have a right to disagree, regardless of whether or not they are the same gender or not, or the same sexual preference or not, or the same color or not, or the same culture or not, or any supposed similarity or difference. People are people, individuals, and all deserve 100% equivalent consideration regardless, and, according to law, all deserve equal protection and due process regardless.
-
Ain’t civil rights grand?

Posted by savvy on Monday, Nov, 26, 2012 4:03 PM (EDT):

Peter,

You are not addressing this issue. Nobody is taking away anybody else’s religious freedom. The mandate is basically saying that a Catholic organization is not Catholic. This is the issue.

Jesus also preached tough love, which included telling others they were wrong when they were. I also fed up of the hysteria that the church is trying to take over the govt. Nobody has the authority to do this.

There is a difference between tolerance and approval. It seems like some groups want forced approval. I do not appreciate you speaking for me as a woman either. There are also gays who might disagree with you.

Posted by Peter Blaise on Sunday, Nov, 25, 2012 9:48 PM (EDT):

Oh, was I supposed to answer this? This has gone on so long, I thought all issues were addressed at least once. Okay, one more time:
-
Earlier, savvy wrote, “... Some would argue
abortion is murder if even it’s legal ...”
-
That’s already been addressed as the inside someone’s body being outside the jurisdiction of the government. Perhaps making contraceptive and birth control readily available, and teaching and expecting our men to keep it in their pants unless they have agreed upon contract to partner and take care of offspring for 20+ years. That would be a great place to divert your energy instead of trying to address the end of the cascade, that is, why not start at the beginning, with the man?
-
“... People have a right not to be forced to
fund it ...”
-
Two problems with this.
-
One, who is forced to fund abortion?
-
Two, who has a line item veto on their taxes to un-fund anything of which they disapprove?
-
“... On re-definging marriage ...”
-
No one’s redefining marriage, unless you want to address the Catholic Bishops silence on divorce in US law.
-
“... On the Mandate, it’s definition of
religious freedom, holds that anything
you do outside a place of worship is not
religious. So a Kosher butcher is not
religious, a bible publisher is not religious,
a religious order that makes jams and sells
them to make a living is not religious. This
kind of reasoning would shut everybody down ...”
-
Well, “shut down” is in the eye of the beholder, and is hardly a Constitutional concept, but selling goods and services in the free marketplace is not a religious activity that supersedes the laws of commerce, just as employing someone from the general populace is not a religious activity that supersedes the law of labor, and so on. Unless you want a vegetarian employer to deduct the cost of meat from employee’s wages if they eat meat, and so on, for every possible belief an employer may have in opposition to their employee’s beliefs. When are you going to support the freedom of religion of the employees?
-
Don’t conflate (a) freedom of belief and practice over one’s self with (b) any activity that affects others.
-
Remember that very same jurisdiction that you want to protect your freedom to control your own body, well, it protects you from other people controlling your own body, right?
-
Wait a minute, are you arguing FOR contraception rights and abortion rights unfettered by anyone else’s controls? Wah-hoo for you. When it comes to equivalent consideration for everyone to control their own body and mind, we probably agree after all.
-
“... Now, you talk about rights, but are
forgetting that others have rights to free
speech and expression too, even those you
disagree with ...”
-
Oh yes, a free society is messy, isn’t it? We must let everyone have their say no matter how uncomfortable it may make us feel.
-
“... When a conflict of interest arises this
will be settled in a court of law ...”
-
No, when it comes to a conflict of free speech interests, where any conflict will not be settled at all—that’s the mess of a free society: people never have to agree with each other or shut up, or risk sanction by law. Oh no, we all are free to jabber on and rail against each other’s views, and so, conflicts in the content and presentation of free speech is not a matter for the courts to settle. Those who are made uncomfortable by other’s free speech will have to sooth their own discomfort. There is, however, the equivalent freedom to not listen, isn’t there?
-
“... But, telling someone else they cannot
express their views, because you disagree, is
infringing on their rights too. Tolerance does
not equate approval ...”
-
Well, those are unrelated concepts, and totally unrelated to Catholicism and the government inflicting Catholicism or any religion on others, and totally unrelated to discrimination against anyone, especially because you think someone else may be committing what, for you, might be a “sin”.
-
Savvy, I appreciate that there’s a lot out there that you don’t like. Go ahead and keep on not liking it. But please understand that laws are not going to work well if they are written to sooth the discomfort of one person who simply does not like the beliefs and behaviors of another person, especially when those beliefs and behaviors are personal and are absolutely no one else’s business, such as what someone does inside their own body, and what someone does in private with another consenting adult.
-
And thanks for the closer on tolerance and acceptance, both concepts that Jesus would probably encourage us to express, though even Jesus may also have suggested that if someone does not accept and tolerate you, dust off your shoes and move on.
-
Now, when it comes to running we-the-people’s self-governance, we’ve agreed to a contract called the US Constitution and Amendments and so on that suggests that, as Rodney King might have said, “Why don’t we all just get along?”—and that is so hard to do when Catholic Bishops keep telling us that “we” does not include women and gays.
-
Perhaps if the Catholic Bishops would do as Jesus would do, and just get out there and preach to anyone who will listen, instead of trying to run the government as lord over everyone, you know, let them preach to the simmers instead of trying to control the law ... ah, but you may say I’m a dreamer ...

Catholicism is not conservative or liberal. It is not afraid to defy blood and soil, when morality is at stake.

Like Thomas More who those to lose his head, for not obeying the crazy King,

I understand that current liberal arguments are valid, since the Bible was used to justify past behaviour. But, Catholicism is not based on Sola Scriptura.

I do think that Catholics need to break free from party politics and find a third way.

Posted by Lark on Thursday, Nov, 15, 2012 8:45 PM (EDT):

Sometimes it seems to me that conservatives believe racism doesn’t exist because there are no separate water fountains and black people are not being lynched on a monthly basis. Certainly, as a black woman, I have many more opportunities than I would have had fifty years ago. Whie at age sixteen, my grandmother was cleaning white people’s homes (while enduring verbal abuse and tiny wages), at that age I was a high school junior planning on going to college. The nostalgia many Republicans have for America in the 1950s and before often leads many people of color to support the Democrats. Prince George’s County MD, which is mostly black and voted overwhelmingly for Obama, voted against gay marriage 50-48. While some things were good about the 1950s (such as far more stable two-parent families), people of color might remember those times with less rose-tinted glasses). The racial dog-whistles such as Santorum’s comment about how black people should work and not take handouts (who wants to take handouts? Everyone wants to work!) don’t help. Has little to do with a love of gay marriage or the culture of death. Although I don’t support the Democrats (for their stance on abortion as well as their belief that government solves everything), I don’t feel comfortable in the Republican party and sometimes not in conservative Catholicism

Posted by savvy on Wednesday, Nov, 14, 2012 5:46 PM (EDT):

Peter,

Some would argue abortion is murder if even it’s legal. Calling something a right does not make it so. People have a right not to be forced to fund it.

On re-definging marriage some would argue that the state has no right doing this, since they need to explain what marriage is and why should the state regulate it in the first place?

On the Mandate, it’s definition of religious freedom, holds that anything you do outside a place of worship is not religious. So a Kosher butcher is not religious, a bible publisher is not religious, a religious order that makes jams and sells them to make a living is not religious. This kind of reasoning would shut everybody down.

Now, you talk about rights, but are forgetting that others have rights to free speech and expression too, even those you disagree with.

When a conflict of interest aries this will be settled in a court of law.

But, telling someone else they cannot express their views, because your disagree, is infringing on their rights too. Tolerance does not equate approval.

Posted by Peter Blaise on Wednesday, Nov, 14, 2012 10:05 AM (EDT):

-
Coda:
-
From the church bulletin of Our Lady of Lourdes Catholic Community in Daytona Beach, Florida, US:
-
“We extend a special welcome to those who are single, married, divorced, gay, filthy rich, dirt poor, yo no habla Ingles. We extend a special welcome to those who are crying newborns, skinny as a rail or could afford to lose a few pounds.
-
We welcome you if you can sing like Andrea Bocelli or like our pastor who can’t carry a note in a bucket. You’re welcome here if you’re “just browsing,” just woke up or just got out of jail. We don’t care if you’re more Catholic than the Pope, or haven’t been in church since little Joey’s Baptism.
-
We extend a special welcome to those who are over 60 but not grown up yet, and to teenagers who are growing up too fast. We welcome soccer moms, NASCAR dads, starving artists, tree-huggers, latte-sippers, vegetarians, junk-food eaters. We welcome those who are in recovery or still addicted. We welcome you if you’re having problems or you’re down in the dumps or if you don’t like “organized religion,” we’ve been there too.
-
If you blew all your offering money at the dog track, you’re welcome here. We offer a special welcome to those who think the earth is flat, work too hard, don’t work, can’t spell, or because grandma is in town and wanted to go to church.
-
We welcome those who are inked, pierced or both. We offer a special welcome to those who could use a prayer right now, had religion shoved down your throat as a kid or got lost in traffic and wound up here by mistake. We welcome tourists, seekers and doubters, bleeding hearts … and you!”
-
Pax domini sit semper vobiscum.

Posted by Peter Blaise on Wednesday, Nov, 14, 2012 4:49 AM (EDT):

-
The opening post claims that Martin Luther King Jr’s Civil Rights Movement was all about equality.
Then claims that women and gays later climbing on board that Civil Rights Movement is inappropriate, claiming that the Civil Rights Movement regarding them is now all about inequality against the rights of women and gays—an argument spinning against their own point.
I can see no explanation for disregarding history:
The fact that the Civil Rights Movement struggle for Women’s Suffrage and the Civil Rights Movement for racial and economic equality informed each other over a century.
And the fact that the women’s and racial and economic Civil Rights Movements informed the gay Civil Rights Movement, and the fact that Martin Luther King Jr had a homosexual person organize the 1963 March on Washington.
Think of it, one of the largest political rallies for human rights in United States history was brought to us by a homosexual.
Martin Luther King Jr’s Civil Right Movement was never exclusive of women and gays.
Which is it, the Civil Rights Movement includes women and gays, or the Civil Rights Movement excludes women and gays?
Pick one, and stop spinning.
-
When I asked what is the source of this post’s call for Catholics to discriminate against the rights of other people, against the rights of women and gays, someone shared a litany of Catechism and other writing, essentially listing rational (not faith) arguments against personal behavior, yet calling for Catholics to not discriminate, thank you, sharing an argument spinning against their own points.
Which is it, Catholics are called to discriminate or Catholics are called to not discriminate?
Pick one and stop spinning.
-
Finally, someone wrote that people are voting against laws that do not discriminate against women and gays, therefore majority rules, I suppose, but they also wrote that law suits based on the US Constitution are being waged against those same laws because those laws do not discriminate against women and gays, therefore the US Constitution rules, I suppose, again, an argument spinning against their own points.
Which is it, majority rules or the US Constitution rules?
Pick one and stop spinning.
-
“... This argument is just going around in circles ...”
-
Yes, I agree.
While I stand perfectly centered and consistent throughout, wondering why the opening post and some subsequent replies correlate being a good Catholic with a call to discriminate against the civil rights of others, as those calls spin endlessly around me, generating their own arguments against themselves.
-
Look, folks, the points are:
-
1: No matter what is your personal opinion of sin, it’s your personal opinion, and no one else can or should take any action based on your personal opinion of what you think is right for you, personally.
You can give advice, personally, on what other people might freely choose to do or not do, but it would be inappropriate for us as a Constitutional collective to superimpose your personal preferences for yourselves as power over others.
Other people’s personal sins are none of your business, none of our business, especially when their sin is expressed outside your jurisdiction, outside our jurisdiction, such as inside their own body.
-
2: The law and it’s enforcement does not compel any Catholic to sin against their own personal beliefs and preferences for themselves.
-
Thank you all for exploring this.
I am satisfied that I understand your views, and I hope that you understand my views, even though we do not agree.
I doubt we have persuaded each other to change our views, but I also doubt that was our intention, rather, our intention was to vet out and understand the support and reasoning behind our views, and I think that has been done.

Posted by savvy on Saturday, Nov, 10, 2012 12:27 PM (EDT):

Peter,

This argument is just going around in circles.

“We” the people voted against ObamaCare in 5 states. The anti-conscience mandate has 50 lawsuits to date against it.

The govt, is not above the courts or the constitution.

Posted by Howard on Saturday, Nov, 10, 2012 10:39 AM (EDT):

Peter, at one point you identified yourself as a Catholic yet you deny basic tenants of Catholicism. You Sound more like the atheists I have debated. Are you really an atheist or are you just making up your own religion as taught by relativism?
.
What do you do when everyone else is reciting the Nicene Creed?
.
“I believe in one God, the Father almighty, maker of heaven and earth, of all things visible and invisible. I believe in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Only Begotten Son of God, born of the Father before all ages. God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, consubstantial with the Father……..”
.
“To say that no one
is above the law is to deny the assertions
of the Declaration of Independence ...”
.
Not really; we disagree—surprised?
They were just tired of a hypocritical religious government…”
.
Peter, you deny that the colonists can be above the law then support their defiance of the law. A good example of a bad rationalization. Do you just make up reality as you need it?

Posted by Peter Blaise on Friday, Nov, 9, 2012 10:18 PM (EDT):

Earlier, savvy wrote, “... So the govt is
basically legislating what they consider
“moral” and the rest of us have to play
along or else? Howard is right this is
called a dictatorship ...”
-
No, the legislature is legislating legislature, the executive executes, judges judge, most are Republican, by the way, and they agreed on something you don’t like.
If you call that a dictatorship, I wonder what it is you call your “god”.
-
Savvy, we-the-people are not making you sin, only enforcing anti discrimination laws if you ave a public offering.
You don’t have to have a public offering.
But if you do, don’t discriminate.
-
“Dictatorship” wise, wasn’t there just an election the other day that confirmed that “the govt” is “we the people”?
-
Earlier, Howard wrote, “... the world has
not been poly-theistic since Jesus Christ
gained an immense number of followers.
Where do you get multiple Gods from? ...”
-
Yours, mine, savvy’s, and so on.
Billions.
-
Jesus Christ is the son of god, not the god, a unitarian part of a trinity—how many gods did you say there were?
And his name was Jesus, not Jesus Christ.
His last name is not Christ, that is an appellation given by Greek writers translating and referring to their cultural interpretation of what Greeks did that was the equivalent of what John the Baptist did—“christened” Jesus like a ship setting sail, “the anointed one”.
-
In the US, our founding documents suggest a speculation that each is endowed by their creator with unalienable rights.
But there was no claim that your creator has anything to do with my creator.
This was the founder’s way of preventing everyone from having to honor someone else’s god as if someone else’s god was supposedly same god that had been externally certified by some authority, like a Pope, or judge, or your neighbor.
-
Howard wrote, “... Natures God is the god
that created nature. “Their” God refers to
that Creator ...”
-
So you say, for you.
I say different, for me.
Freedom of religion—isn’t it grand?
That doesn’t mean we have a choice of which religion to become a thoughtless clone in, but each of us, including any number of Catholics, has freedom of religion, and none of us, probably, have anything remotely the like same religion, even as we sit and kneel side by side in the pew.
Hence the “immense number of followers” of Jesus and Barack Obama who happen to be Catholic.
None of them, however, would even think of suggesting that a vote against Barack Obama was non Catholic.
They understand the separation between church and state, and they take it seriously, and they take it personally.
They did not vote as Catholics, or as Americans, or as anything but themselves.
-
Howard also wrote, “... To say that no one
is above the law is to deny the assertions
of the Declaration of Independence ...”
-
Not really; we disagree—surprised?
They were just tired of a hypocritical religious government that sucked out money and squandered it without benefiting those whose money it was, a government remotely managed by an authority overseas, a government that denied democratic participation, and seemed to discriminate between people, some considered less equal.
Sound familiar?
-
But, declaration wise, apropos this thread on civil rights and Martin Luther King Junior, perhaps reading a letter from a Birmingham Jail would be refreshing.

Posted by Howard on Friday, Nov, 9, 2012 7:30 PM (EDT):

“and no one is above the law no matter whose god they claim is on their side.”

Peter, the world has not been poly-theistic since Jesus Christ gained an immense number of followers. Where do you get multiple Gods from? Natures God is the god that created nature. “Their” God refers to that Creator.

I wonder how in the world you could have ever called yourself an American in 1776, maybe your loyalty would have been to the King. To say that no one is above the law is to deny the assertions of the Declaration of Independence.

Posted by Peter Blaise on Friday, Nov, 9, 2012 6:53 PM (EDT):

Earlier, Howard wrote, “... Does the law think
it is above God? Please re-read the Declaration
of Independence ...”
-
Quote what line you think is important, please.
I read: nature’s god, not man’s god; and I read: their creator, not the creator.
-
So, no your god’s not bigger than my god, and no one is above the law no matter whose god they claim is on their side.
-
Regarding civil rights and Catholicism, the theme of this thread, when I asked if the Catholic Bishops thought they were above the law “again”, I was thinking of the civil rights of Catholic children in Catholic priest’s care, priests who ... abused ... those Catholic children’s civil rights, then the Bishops hid those priests from civil and criminal law while spending millions of Catholic parishioner’s money to fend off and eventually pay off suits.
-
Something comes to my mind about getting our own house in order before pointing fingers at others.

Posted by savvy on Friday, Nov, 9, 2012 1:31 PM (EDT):

Peter,

So the govt is basically legislating what they consider “moral” and the rest of us have to play along or else? Howard is right this is called a dictatorship.

Posted by cathy williamson on Friday, Nov, 9, 2012 12:14 PM (EDT):

Tim, this is an article I wish I’d written. In fact, after reading Uncle Tom’s Cabin for the first time this summer (something was missinginmy high school AP English curriculum, I guess,) these very thoughts swam in my head. Keep writing for what’s right. I’m sorry for those who disagree in such a disagreeable way with you. May God give us all grace to be gracious when we don’t see eye-to-eye.

Posted by Howard on Friday, Nov, 9, 2012 11:01 AM (EDT):

“...as you suggest”
.
Peter, I suggested nothing.
.
I think we have come to see clearer the reason for your rationalizations, and the reasons of those of the 51% that elected this administration, and a clearer understanding for my belief that we are heading for a totalitarian form or government.
.
“Does the Catholic hierarchy think they are above the law?”
.
Does the law think it is above God? Please re-read the Declaration of Independence – read it if you have not.
.
Do the lawmakers and the law enforcers think they are above the law? All the time. That is the reason for the third part of government, the courts. That is the reason totalitarianism gains power.

Posted by Peter Blaise on Thursday, Nov, 8, 2012 8:17 PM (EDT):

Earlier, Howard wrote, “... could just as well
be distributed through a CVS pharmacy with a
coupon, or, a reimbursement on your tax return,
or, the condom window at the Post Office ...”
-
... as could any social benefit, why not let every benefit be socialized, employed or not, as you suggest, and be done with it?

-
Earlier, carroll wrote, “... Jesus was not
a feminist. read your bible ...”.
-
You mean read YOUR bible YOUR way.
Jesus was not in The Bible, but I suppose the Gospels are considered The New Testament, not that the writers of the Old Testament knew they were writing the Old Testament at the time.
Jesus didn’t write anything, so all we can do is speculate.
You say not a feminist, I say super feminist.
So?
Now what?
-
Earlier, savvy wrote, “... pro-choice now
includes force and co-oersion ... parental
rights in education have been affected over
gay marriage ... All because the govt.
thinks they know what is now best for
everybody else ...”
-
We the people are the government, just ask Sue (old) about majority rules.
We are the everybody else.
And no one’s co-ersion-ing anyone.
You wanna be an employer, you follow the rules, you don’t discriminate.
You wanna give benefits, you follow the rules, you don’t discriminate.
No one has to be an employer.
No one has to give benefits.
Why do some Catholics expect special dispensation so they can discriminate?
What is Catholic about that?
Does the Catholic hierarchy think they are above the law?
Again?

Posted by savvy on Thursday, Nov, 8, 2012 1:44 PM (EDT):

Peter,

These public civil rights stop being rights, went pro-choice now includes force and co-oersion. In Canada, we have seen how parental rights in education have been affected over gay marriage and other issues too. All because the govt. thinks they know what is now best for everybody else.

One day the bully might just get punched back.

Posted by caleb carroll on Thursday, Nov, 8, 2012 12:50 PM (EDT):

Jesus was not a feminist. read your bible.

Posted by Howard on Thursday, Nov, 8, 2012 10:44 AM (EDT):

“Pay is pay, money tendered, nothing direct or indirect about it, nothing is free, every benefit is earned and owed to the employee.”
.
Peter, this is the argument that the administration wants you accept. The truth is that the HHS in order to proliferate mandated birth control, abortifacient and sterilization is attempting to use a distribution method and a cleaver tax increase (according to the S.C.) to get this stuff to the population for free. It is basically just a DISTRIBUTION METHOD.
.
Men and women with badges and guns behind them are ordering employers, universities and insurance companies to provide these things. There is no earning involved! You are only getting something that could just as well be distributed through a CVS pharmacy with a coupon, or, a reimbursement on your tax return, or, the condom window at the Post Office.
.
I think your ignorance of the issue has a very good consequence. People who may not have understood the issue very well have an opportunity to get a clearer picture.

Posted by Peter Blaise on Thursday, Nov, 8, 2012 1:46 AM (EDT):

Thank you, Savvy and TA, for your reiteration of your points.
-
Perhaps we’re talking past each other, talking about different things, and not knowing it.
I think we’re talking about public civil behavior so I refer to public civil behavior source materials like the founding and definitive documents of the US.
You think we’re talking about personal responsibility so you refer to personal responsibility source materials like the Catholic Catechism.
I’m not arguing with you over personal preferences and responsibility; I’m asking what gives Catholics superior rights over others in the public civil arena?
-
No one is forcing anyone to sin, only to give equal pay for equal work, regardless of the form of remuneration, be it cash or benefits.
-
Regarding the medical personnel not wanting to perform abortions, that’s a tough one: how do you keep your publicly available offering respectful of other people’s public civil rights while serving your own personal moral preferences?
I think of folks who run bed-and-breakfasts from their home not wanting to offer their rooms to gay couples or even to unmarried co-ed couples, or years earlier, interracial couples, or blacks at all, or Jews.
Quitting one’s public offering seems the superior personal moral thing to do, as it is taking personal responsibility for one’s own personal preferences rather than placing a burden on others in the civil universe to carry out our own personal preferences against their own public civil rights.
-
Great challenges, though.
This world is a tough place in which to practice one’s own personal moral preferences and yet respect the public civil rights of others.
-
TA, I’m still reviewing the Catechism et cetera missive you posted earlier, patience!

Posted by TA on Wednesday, Nov, 7, 2012 11:35 PM (EDT):

Peter, moral tensions started when government began legislating moral acts as “rights” BUT this uproar started when the Obama administration crossed the line and propsed not just using our tax dollar to do something that is against our religion, but also demanding our direct participation in the act. So my friend, a nurse in Day Surgery, was forced to assist in abortions—she quit. How do you justify this ? Is this freedom? The slide goes on…

Posted by savvy on Wednesday, Nov, 7, 2012 10:20 PM (EDT):

Peter,

“Pay is pay, money tendered, nothing direct or indirect about it, nothing is free, every benefit is earned and owed to the employee.”

This is not pay. It’s health insurance that employees did without before. And food if not free, so why should contraception. Hard work is now rewarded only with contraception, abortion, drugs and sterilization, when there are so many other important health issues?

“Many religious Catholics use contraception and do not see it as an either-or situation.”

Yes, but the mandate is an either/or situation. Pay the fines, go to jail, shut down. This is exactly what the govt wants, to takeover completely.

“Nothing in your most recent post says why a Catholic is instructed by their Catholicism to express their own freely chosen preferences as superior rights over anyone else’s civil rights, especially in an employment situation that is open to the general public.”

The ones not being given the choice here are Catholic employers and those with conscience issues.

“Imagine being a priest being asked to allow their employees in a publicly available job to take responsibility for their own decisions on what they do with their hard earned pay and benefits.”

If someone is old enough to take responsibility for their personal lives, they are old enough to pay for the supplies.

What you call superior rights, is simply a principled stand for life. Others are not being asked to sacrifice their principles here. The church is. This is not the case with life, because this mandate can be reversed legally.

Posted by Peter Blaise on Wednesday, Nov, 7, 2012 9:38 PM (EDT):

TA wrote, “... giving women free contraception ...”
-
... is not the issue.
First, we’re talking about employee pay and benefits, not free anything.
Second, we’re talking about medical insurance delivered by a doctor, not free anything distributed without prescription.
Third, efficacy of what someone does with their pay and benefits is not justification for withholding pay.
Fourth, re-read some of the definitions of “rationalization” if you think the reason the Catholic church wants to withhold employee benefits that cover contraception is because women might get pregnant! Seriously?
-
TA wrote, “... [ contraception ] never benefits a woman alone ...”
-
You are flat out wrong and grossly insensitive.
Some women I know are on the pill to regulate otherwise unending periods where they would die from loss of blood, and are not sexually active.
Some women I know want to use contraceptives because their man is a pig who will not use contraceptives.
Some women I know want to use contraceptives because their man is insensitive to the woman’s desire not to get pregnant.
Some women I know want to use contraceptives because they have not yet figured out how to stop or get away from their man raping them, and they do not want to get pregnant again.
I can also imagine a woman wanting to prevent pregnancy from unplanned, unintended, “legitimate” rape just happening on the street in their very bad neighborhood.
-
Regardless of all your fetching and obvious rationalizations on the evils and inappropriateness of contraceptives that are not the source of Church policy, what gives an employer superior rights over an employee in this matter?

Posted by Peter Blaise on Wednesday, Nov, 7, 2012 9:13 PM (EDT):

Earlier, Savvy write, “... remote material co-operation
... direct material co-operation ... Religious freedom
is more important to let go of for something as trivial
as free contraception ...”
-
Pay is pay, money tendered, nothing direct or indirect about it, nothing is free, every benefit is earned and owed to the employee.
Discrimination is discrimination, nothing excusable about it, under the same civil and criminal law that we all have to honor or risk suffering the consequences, aside from the burden of guilt that we ripped someone off and paid them less than promised.
“... important ...” versus “... trivial ..” are a personal preferences, and do not give one person superior rights over someone else’s equivalent freedom and rights to decide for themselves what is their own “... important ...” versus “... trivial ...”, or not.
Many religious Catholics use contraception and do not see it as an either-or situation.
Whenever two or more gather, there is going to be two or more ways of looking at anything.
-
We’re going round and round here,
Nothing in your most recent post says why a Catholic is instructed by their Catholicism to express their own freely chosen preferences as superior rights over anyone else’s civil rights, especially in an employment situation that is open to the general public.
I appreciate that an employer may not like contraceptives, but nothing in the law forces them to use contraceptives.
An employer who likes Fords can’t withhold the cost of a Chevy if their employee chooses to buy a Chevy.
And don’t say that’s not an apt analogy—have you seen Ford versus Chevy enthusiasts going at it? =8^o
-
Savvy, I appreciate that you are uncomfortable thinking about your church preaching against certain medical procedures, then being a host for insurance that covers those medical procedures.
Imagine being a priest being asked to allow their employees in a publicly available job to take responsibility for their own decisions on what they do with their hard earned pay and benefits.
Such is the enigma of life.
-
Anyway, I’m beyond exploring if anyone prefers this or that—we’ve all shared our preferences, and I know who prefers this, and who prefers that.
At this point in the thread, I’m pursuing why some Catholics feel compelled to express their own preferences as superior rights over other people’s preferences and rights.
I understand why many non-Catholic people think, feel, and behave the way they do.
I’m curious where certain Catholics find the seat of instruction telling them that such behavior is their assigned responsibility as Catholics—or what, go to hell if their employee uses some of their pay and benefits to obtain contraceptives?
TA shared a great deal of Catechism reference, and I’ll be pouring through that looking for answers.
-
Thank you for exploring this further, savvy.
I appreciate your energies and your insights.

Posted by Howard on Wednesday, Nov, 7, 2012 2:10 PM (EDT):

“In yesterday’s notice, the Administration is suggesting that insurance companies offer coverage of abortion-inducing drugs and contraception—free of charge—directly to employees of religious organizations that oppose the mandate on moral or religious grounds. This way, according to the Administration’s logic, religious employers aren’t providing or paying for such services.”
.
http://tinyurl.com/a6caje6
.
“people who use birth control are cheaper to cover than people who do not use birth control.”
.
Peter besides the known increased risk of breast and cervical cancer attributed to birth control pills and acknowledged by the W.H.O consider this:
.
“A study was released last week that claims to show that giving women free contraception drastically reduces unplanned pregnancy rates, and therefore abortion rates. The results are based on the Contraceptive Choice Project, in which researchers from the Washington School of Medicine offered over 9,000 women in St. Louis (some as young as 14) free contraception of their choosing. The story is making the rounds among many of the big media outlets, often cited as a triumph for the ideas behind the Health and Human Services mandate.
.
According to the local Planned Parenthood website, “currently, St. Louis has top rankings in chlamydia and gonorrhea, and is number five in the nation for syphilis and HIV.” It’s also number six in the Center for Disease Control’s list of the top 15 cities with the worst herpes rates. The St. Louis Children’s hospital reports that their city “has some the highest rates for sexually transmitted infections when compared to other U.S. cities.” The Gonorrhea rates in St. Louis are seven times the national average; chlamydia rates are four times the national average; and syphilis rates are three times the national average.”
.
“By the study’s own admission, barrier methods of contraception are ineffective; that’s why, to prevent pregnancy, they were pushing the more invasive techniques that shut down a woman’s reproductive system for the long term. And so, despite one passing mention of the women in the study receiving information about STDs, even the study authors could not honestly say that they weren’t aware that they were drastically increasing these women’s risks of contracting diseases.”
.
http://tinyurl.com/9rd8fb2
.
“are you referring to a male sperm donor who is not an employee,…”
.
I am referring to the fact that birth control provided by an insurance claim can only benefit (in the sense you mean) a pair. A man and a woman, more than likely not even a spouse but could be, and also possibly not even an employee. A pair – man and woman who . It never benefits a woman alone, it is de-facto not gender specific even though it is offered under women’s coverage. It is not a matter of women’s health, having sex is not a disease and having a baby is not a disease. This is a giant social engineering project of the U.S. government and the dream of early adolescent boys for the creation the perfect date.

Regarding rationalization, I am sure that you understand we are not talking about math or industry.
.
transitive verb
1
: to bring into accord with reason or cause something to seem reasonable: as
a : to substitute a natural for a supernatural explanation of <rationalize a myth>
b : to attribute (one’s actions) to rational and creditable motives without analysis of true and especially unconscious motives <rationalized his dislike of his brother> ; broadly : to create an excuse or more attractive explanation for <rationalize the problem>
2
: to free (a mathematical expression) from irrational parts <rationalize a denominator>
3
: to apply the principles of scientific management to (as an industry or its operations) for a desired result (as increased efficiency)
.
intransitive verb
: to provide plausible but untrue reasons for conduct

Posted by savvy on Wednesday, Nov, 7, 2012 1:56 PM (EDT):

Peter,

Taxes paying for war is remote material co-operation. A Catholic organization directly overseeing these things would be direct material co-operation. This is what the mandate forces them to do with no other options. There is a conflict of interest here. Religious freedom is more important to let go of for something as trivial as free contraception.

This mandate is imposing itself, not the other way around.

Posted by Peter Blaise on Wednesday, Nov, 7, 2012 1:27 PM (EDT):

Howard, you lost me.
Perhaps you are referring to things outside this thread.
_
What “... increased cost ...” are you referring to?
Insurance coverage that includes birth control and such is cheaper for the insurance companies than insurance without it because people who use birth control are cheaper to cover than people who do not use birth control.
The Catholic church is demanding what turns out to be more expensive coverage.
Essentially, they never were being asked to pay additional monies to cover birth control and so on.
They were being charged less for coverage that includes those coverages.
_
In your post, where you write “... will not the male sperm donor ...”, are you referring to a male sperm donor who is not an employee, or are you talking about a male employee being discriminatorily denied employer provided medical insurance coverage for birth control and abortifacients?
Male birth control and male abortifacients?
You lost me.
_
I appreciate that you think any employer gives away freebies, but those benefits only convey as part of an employment relationship, and may (or may not) be subject to consideration as income, ask the IRS about itemized income tax filings.
Otherwise, try walking up to that employer and asking for those things you consider freebies and see if they can give them to you without you being an employee first.
_
Regarding “rationalizations”, I’m asking you, Howard, to be specific as to what you think is wrong with rationalizations, rather than presuming that we all know that rationalizations are always inherently and universally wrong, or a bad thing.
Hint, read TA’s missive above before answering whether or not rationalizations are ever appropriate or not: perhaps it’s all relative morals after all?

Posted by Howard on Wednesday, Nov, 7, 2012 11:52 AM (EDT):

Peter, sorry I didn’t answer you last question. Look up “rationalization” in the dictionary.

Posted by Howard on Wednesday, Nov, 7, 2012 11:49 AM (EDT):

Peter, the proposed increase in insurance coverage does not carry with it an obligation to pay for the increased cost on the part of the employee – a freebie.
.
You have not answered my question. Why do you consider the proposed coverage gender specific? Will not the male sperm donor benefit from birth control and abortifacients? Apparently you have not been denied insurance coverage for a pre-existing condition because of the condition, not because you are female.
.
You have not addressed my point regarding the law suits and legal rights of religious people who are being ignored. Nothing is being withheld because nothing is owed at present.

Waiting for more rationalizations.

Posted by Peter Blaise on Wednesday, Nov, 7, 2012 11:32 AM (EDT):

TA, thank you for your carefully collected and shared research, exactly what I was after—we each have our strengths, and I hope I have something to offer that someone values, as I certainly value your offering here.
I will get back to us all here after scrutinizing it for my reasons:
“... where the Pope and Bishops interpreted revelation
for us all, telling us that we [Catholics] have superior
rights to other people’s rights in the following situations ...”

Howard wrote, “... why do you not consider sterilization
a male benefit, and if that is so, why aren’t men getting
a freebie also? ...”
Howard, medical insurance benefits aren’t freebies, they are earned income, no one is freeloading on anyone else’s dime when it comes to medical insurance benefits.
I have no idea where insurance company packages stand regarding sterilization coverage, which, by the way, is not necessarily gender specific.
I’m addressing employer’s respect for employees civil rights, and our law’s equal protection for all.
But you do raise a good point, civil rights wise—insurance companies are highly gender discriminatory in that they consider being a woman a pre-existing condition worthy of disqualifying coverage or additional charges.
Why do we-the-people permit such harvesting of our citizens as if we were infinitely disposable resources, here for the benefit of non-citizen corporations, as if corporations actually are the only “people” that matter?

... and the problem with being rational is ...?

Posted by Howard on Wednesday, Nov, 7, 2012 10:47 AM (EDT):

“You can’t say, “... Oh, you’re a woman, so I’m going to hold back some of your pay because you might do something with it that I don’t approve of, but that man over there gets full pay without any of my moral deductions ...”.
.
Well Peter, then why do you not consider sterilization a male benefit, and if that is so, why aren’t men getting a freebie also?
.
Is it rationalization time for you again?

Posted by TA on Wednesday, Nov, 7, 2012 9:56 AM (EDT):

Peter, if you are still here, this is a small portion of the teachings that you ask for; however, like a puzzle, the beauty of the whole cannot be appreciated AS IT IS with out he rest, the context. I give it to you because you have asked for it, but if you really wanted it you could have found it easily for yourself. It appears that you prefer to find reasons not to respect these teachings rather than trying to understand them and evaluate them honestly, using reason rather then with the emotional defense of “I am not one of them, I am a champion of rights.” But, in the hope that you are honestly seeking and are open ...

Please note that the Church is not defending a Catholic catechism or Catholic “rights”...she defends all life

2270 Human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception. From the first moment of his existence, a human being must be recognized as having the rights of a person - among which is the inviolable right of every innocent being to life. 72

Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you. 73

My frame was not hidden from you, when I was being made in secret, intricately wrought in the depths of the earth. 74

2271 Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion. This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable. Direct abortion, that is to say, abortion willed either as an end or a means, is gravely contrary to the moral law:

You shall not kill the embryo by abortion and shall not cause the newborn to perish. 75

God, the Lord of life, has entrusted to men the noble mission of safeguarding life, and men must carry it out in a manner worthy of themselves. Life must be protected with the utmost care from the moment of conception: abortion and infanticide are abominable crimes. 76

2272 Formal cooperation in an abortion constitutes a grave offense. The Church attaches the canonical penalty of excommunication to this crime against human life. “A person who procures a completed abortion incurs excommunication latae sententiae ,” 77 “by the very commission of the offense,” 78 and subject to the conditions provided by Canon Law. 79 The Church does not thereby intend to restrict the scope of mercy. Rather, she makes clear the gravity of the crime committed, the irreparable harm done to the innocent who is put to death, as well as to the parents and the whole of society.

2273 The inalienable right to life of every innocent human individual is a constitutive element of a civil society and its legislation :

“The inalienable rights of the person must be recognized and respected by civil society and the political authority. These human rights depend neither on single individuals nor on parents; nor do they represent a concession made by society and the state; they belong to human nature and are inherent in the person by virtue of the creative act from which the person took his origin. Among such fundamental rights one should mention in this regard every human being’s right to life and physical integrity from the moment of conception until death.” 80

“The moment a positive law deprives a category of human beings of the protection which civil legislation ought to accord them, the state is denying the equality of all before the law. When the state does not place its power at the service of the rights of each citizen, and in particular of the more vulnerable, the very foundations of a state based on law are undermined. . . . As a consequence of the respect and protection which must be ensured for the unborn child from the moment of conception, the law must provide appropriate penal sanctions for every deliberate violation of the child’s rights.” 81

2274 Since it must be treated from conception as a person, the embryo must be defended in its integrity, cared for, and healed, as far as possible, like any other human being.

Prenatal diagnosis is morally licit, “if it respects the life and integrity of the embryo and the human fetus and is directed toward its safe guarding or healing as an individual. . . . It is gravely opposed to the moral law when this is done with the thought of possibly inducing an abortion, depending upon the results: a diagnosis must not be the equivalent of a death sentence.” 82

2275 “One must hold as licit procedures carried out on the human embryo which respect the life and integrity of the embryo and do not involve disproportionate risks for it, but are directed toward its healing the improvement of its condition of health, or its individual survival.” 83

“Certain attempts to influence chromosomic or genetic inheritance are not therapeutic but are aimed at producing human beings selected according to sex or other predetermined qualities. Such manipulations are contrary to the personal dignity of the human being and his integrity and identity” 85 which are unique and unrepeatable.

Every human being is called to receive a gift of divine sonship, to become a child of God by grace. However, to receive this gift, we must reject sin, including homosexual behavior—that is, acts intended to arouse or stimulate a sexual response regarding a person of the same sex. The Catholic Church teaches that such acts are always violations of divine and natural law.

Homosexual desires, however, are not in themselves sinful. People are subject to a wide variety of sinful desires over which they have little direct control, but these do not become sinful until a person acts upon them, either by acting out the desire or by encouraging the desire and deliberately engaging in fantasies about acting it out. People tempted by homosexual desires, like people tempted by improper heterosexual desires, are not sinning until they act upon those desires in some manner.

Divine Law

The rejection of homosexual behavior that is found in the Old Testament is well known. In Genesis 19, two angels in disguise visit the city of Sodom and are offered hospitality and shelter by Lot. During the night, the men of Sodom demand that Lot hand over his guests for homosexual intercourse. Lot refuses, and the angels blind the men of Sodom. Lot and his household escape, and the town is destroyed by fire “because the outcry against its people has become great before the Lord” (Gen. 19:13).

Throughout history, Jewish and Christian scholars have recognized that one of the chief sins involved in God’s destruction of Sodom was its people’s homosexual behavior. But today, certain homosexual activists promote the idea that the sin of Sodom was merely a lack of hospitality. Although inhospitality is a sin, it is clearly the homosexual behavior of the Sodomites that is singled out for special criticism in the account of their city’s destruction. We must look to Scripture’s own interpretation of the sin of Sodom.

Jude 7 records that Sodom and Gomorrah “acted immorally and indulged in unnatural lust.” Ezekiel says that Sodom committed “abominable things” (Ezek. 16:50), which could refer to homosexual and heterosexual acts of sin. Lot even offered his two virgin daughters in place of his guests, but the men of Sodom rejected the offer, preferring homosexual sex over heterosexual sex (Gen. 19:8–9). Ezekiel does allude to a lack of hospitality in saying that Sodom “did not aid the poor and needy” (Ezek. 16:49). So homosexual acts and a lack of hospitality both contributed to the destruction of Sodom, with the former being the far greater sin, the “abominable thing” that set off God’s wrath.

But the Sodom incident is not the only time the Old Testament deals with homosexuality. An explicit condemnation is found in the book of Leviticus: “You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination. . . . If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death, their blood is upon them” (Lev. 18:22, 20:13).

Reinterpreting Scripture

To discount this, some homosexual activists have argued that moral imperatives from the Old Testament can be dismissed since there were certain ceremonial requirements at the time—such as not eating pork, or circumcising male babies—that are no longer binding.

While the Old Testament’s ceremonial requirements are no longer binding, its moral requirements are. God may issue different ceremonies for use in different times and cultures, but his moral requirements are eternal and are binding on all cultures.

Confirming this fact is the New Testament’s forceful rejection of homosexual behavior as well. In Romans 1, Paul attributes the homosexual desires of some to a refusal to acknowledge and worship God. He says, “For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. Their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural, and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in their own persons the due penalty for their error. And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a base mind and to improper conduct. . . . Though they know God’s decree that those who do such things deserve to die, they not only do them but approve those who practice them” (Rom. 1:26–28, 32).

Elsewhere Paul again warns that homosexual behavior is one of the sins that will deprive one of heaven: “Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God” (1 Cor. 6:9–10, NIV).

All of Scripture teaches the unacceptability of homosexual behavior. But the rejection of this behavior is not an arbitrary prohibition. It, like other moral imperatives, is rooted in natural law—the design that God has built into human nature.

Natural Law

People have a basic, ethical intuition that certain behaviors are wrong because they are unnatural. We perceive intuitively that the natural sex partner of a human is another human, not an animal.

The same reasoning applies to the case of homosexual behavior. The natural sex partner for a man is a woman, and the natural sex partner for a woman is a man. Thus, people have the corresponding intuition concerning homosexuality that they do about bestiality—that it is wrong because it is unnatural.

Natural law reasoning is the basis for almost all standard moral intuitions. For example, it is the dignity and value that each human being naturally possesses that makes the needless destruction of human life or infliction of physical and emotional pain immoral. This gives rise to a host of specific moral principles, such as the unacceptability of murder, kidnapping, mutilation, physical and emotional abuse, and so forth.

“I Was Born This Way”

Many homosexuals argue that they have not chosen their condition, but that they were born that way, making homosexual behavior natural for them.

But because something was not chosen does not mean it was inborn. Some desires are acquired or strengthened by habituation and conditioning instead of by conscious choice. For example, no one chooses to be an alcoholic, but one can become habituated to alcohol. Just as one can acquire alcoholic desires (by repeatedly becoming intoxicated) without consciously choosing them, so one may acquire homosexual desires (by engaging in homosexual fantasies or behavior) without consciously choosing them.

Since sexual desire is subject to a high degree of cognitive conditioning in humans (there is no biological reason why we find certain scents, forms of dress, or forms of underwear sexually stimulating), it would be most unusual if homosexual desires were not subject to a similar degree of cognitive conditioning.

Even if there is a genetic predisposition toward homosexuality (and studies on this point are inconclusive), the behavior remains unnatural because homosexuality is still not part of the natural design of humanity. It does not make homosexual behavior acceptable; other behaviors are not rendered acceptable simply because there may be a genetic predisposition toward them.

For example, scientific studies suggest some people are born with a hereditary disposition to alcoholism, but no one would argue someone ought to fulfill these inborn urges by becoming an alcoholic. Alcoholism is not an acceptable “lifestyle” any more than homosexuality is.

The Ten Percent Argument

Homosexual activists often justify homosexuality by claiming that ten percent of the population is homosexual, meaning that it is a common and thus acceptable behavior.

But not all common behaviors are acceptable, and even if ten percent of the population were born homosexual, this would prove nothing. One hundred percent of the population is born with original sin and the desires flowing from it. If those desires manifest themselves in a homosexual fashion in ten percent of the population, all that does is give us information about the demographics of original sin.

But the fact is that the ten percent figure is false. It stems from the 1948 report by Alfred Kinsey, Sexual Behavior in the Human Male. The study was profoundly flawed, as later psychologists studying sexual behavior have agreed. Kinsey’s subjects were drawn heavily from convicted criminals; 1,400 of his 5,300 final subjects (twenty-six percent) were convicted sex offenders—a group that by definition is not representative of normal sexual practices.

Furthermore, the ten percent figure includes people who are not exclusively homosexual but who only engaged in some homosexual behavior for a period of time and then stopped—people who had gone through a fully or partially homosexual “phase” but who were not long-term homosexuals. (For a critique of Kinsey’s research methods, see Kinsey, Sex, and Fraud, by Dr. Judith Reisman and Edward Eichel [Lafayette, Louisiana: Lochinvar & Huntington House, 1990].)

Recent and more scientifically accurate studies have shown that only around one to two percent of the population is homosexual.

“You’re Just a Homophobe”

Those opposed to homosexual behavior are often charged with “homophobia”—that they hold the position they do because they are “afraid” of homosexuals. Sometimes the charge is even made that these same people are perhaps homosexuals themselves and are overcompensating to hide this fact, even from themselves, by condemning other homosexuals.

Both of these arguments attempt to stop rational discussion of an issue by shifting the focus to one of the participants. In doing so, they dismiss another person’s arguments based on some real or supposed attribute of the person. In this case, the supposed attribute is a fear of homosexuals.

Like similar attempts to avoid rational discussion of an issue, the homophobia argument completely misses the point. Even if a person were afraid of homosexuals, that would not diminish his arguments against their behavior. The fact that a person is afraid of handguns would not nullify arguments against handguns, nor would the fact that a person might be afraid of handgun control diminish arguments against handgun control.

Furthermore, the homophobia charge rings false. The vast majority of those who oppose homosexual behavior are in no way “afraid” of homosexuals. A disagreement is not the same as a fear. One can disagree with something without fearing it, and the attempt to shut down rational discussion by crying “homophobe!” falls flat. It is an attempt to divert attention from the arguments against one’s position by focusing attention on the one who made the arguments, while trying to claim the moral high ground against him.

The Call to Chastity

The modern arguments in favor of homosexuality have thus been insufficient to overcome the evidence that homosexual behavior is against divine and natural law, as the Bible and the Church, as well as the wider circle of Jewish and Christian (not to mention Muslim) writers, have always held.

The Catholic Church thus teaches: “Basing itself on sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered. They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved” (Catechism of the Catholic Church 2357).

However, the Church also acknowledges that “[homosexuality’s] psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. . . . The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God’s will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s cross the difficulties that they may encounter from their condition.

“Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection” (CCC 2357– 2359).

Paul comfortingly reminds us, “No temptation has overtaken you that is not common to man. God is faithful, and he will not let you be tempted beyond your strength, but with the temptation will also provide the way of escape, that you may be able to endure it” (1 Cor. 10:13).

Homosexuals who want to live chastely can contact Courage, a national, Church-approved support group for help in deliverance from the homosexual lifestyle.

Courage,
Church of St. John the Baptist
210 W. 31st St., New York, NY 10001

(212) 268–1010
Web: http://couragerc.net

Posted by Peter Blaise on Wednesday, Nov, 7, 2012 1:45 AM (EDT):

Earlier, savvy wrote, “... I think it’s very offensive and a direct targeting of a pro-life church, by forcing to them violate their views on this issue with this mandate ...”
Nobody’s forcing the Catholic Church to violate their views, only subjecting to the same lawsuits any employers are subject to who discriminate, in this case by gender, against their employees in publicly available positions.
The Catholic Church can continue to discriminate by gender against participation in church hierarchy and authority as they wish.
There isn’t a Catholic forced against their will to sin any more than any US citizen does in paying their taxes that may be spent on something of which they disprove, such as the Iraq war, for example.
While I appreciate that you might like contraception and abortion to go away, it is possible for each and every Catholic to have that for themselves in their own life, God willing that don’t get raped.
Out there in the real world, however, both will probably exist for a long time, and gratefully, one will obviate the call for the other somewhat, and we can always lend our Catholic voices to whomever will listen that there may be other ways to take care of ourselves and each other, and all just get along.
Remember, civil rights starts with treating ourselves appropriately first, then treating the world appropriately, one person at a time.
Struggling with our “Caesars” was something that even Jesus suggested was not worth getting distracted by.
Pax domini sit semper vobiscum, savvy.

Posted by savvy on Tuesday, Nov, 6, 2012 10:01 PM (EDT):

I think it’s very offensive and a direct targeting of a pro-life church, by forcing them violate their views on this issue with this mandate.

Posted by Peter Blaise on Tuesday, Nov, 6, 2012 8:49 PM (EDT):

Thanks, Howard, for getting into the minutia of the industry jargon on the words “pay”, “benefits”, and soon, but as a lay person, I’m referring to employer’s gender discrimination, the civil rights part of this thread.
Pay is pay.
You can’t say, “... Oh, you’re a woman, so I’m going to hold back some of your pay because you might do something with it that I don’t approve of, but that man over there gets full pay without any of my moral deductions ...”.
I’m writing about prohibiting employers from trouncing on women’s civil rights to equal pay for equal work, regardless of the format or avenue of negotiation of the employment contract and compensation, it must be non-discriminatory.
And yet no one on this thread can tell me why a self-defined Catholic employer thinks it is their Catholic-informed duty to discriminate.
No one is making them use contraception or have an abortion.
Are self-defined Catholic employer’s next going to withhold pay because someone might drink, and that being a sin, the employer must not support that, and deduct drinking money from employee’s pay?
Or a Muslim employer deducting the cost of bacon from employee’s pay ... little Sharia laws everywhere, different for each employer?
Must we leave the protection of the US Constitution just because we want a job, just because we walked into an employment contract?
The US Constitution and Amendments mandates that employers cannot act extra-constitutionally when trying to harvest employees from the US Citizenry; they must follow the laws, and discrimination is not allowed.
Of course they can still practice their own religion on themselves, just not over their employees.
That is why I asked: what is it about Catholicism that demands that we inflict our interpretation of Catholicism over others, over our employees, over the laws of the state?
No one here has answered ... except with a foggy reference to “... because the Bishops say so ...”.
I’m simply asking for more of an explanation than that.

Since Sue (old) isn’t interested in ongoing dialog with me, let me just add balancing notes to this thread nonetheless:
A “majority” may vote and win elections and other things voted on, but that is not “rule”, that is electing executives and legislators and judges who then play a balancing act with each other with the US Constitution and Amendments as a pivot controlling their powers.
The old analogy from grammar school applies: a majority, say, “whites”, may not trounce on the minority, say, “non-whites”, because the US Constitution and Amendments protect the rights of the minorities.
Replace those two variables of “whites / non-whites” with almost any “group” identities, such as “men may not trounce on the rights of non-men”, “Christians may not trounce on the rights of non-Christians”, “heterosexuals may not trounce on the rights of non-heterosexuals”, “the non-pregnant may not trounce on the rights of the pregnant”, “employers may not trounce on the rights of employees”, and so on.
No, majority does not “rule”.

TA, I fully appreciate the rights of the unborn, and have never advocated for abandoning their rights.
I have asked about the rights of the pregnant woman, but no one wants to recognize or discuss those.
I have asked about the rights of the non-pregnant woman, and no one wants to recognize or discuss those.
I also asked about the rights of gay people, and no one wants to recognize or discuss those.
I also asked about any Catholic origin for the denying of civil rights to women and gays, but no one wants to recognize or discuss that.

I’m asking questions.
For me, it’s an “why is the emperor naked?” kind of observation.
I’d like someone to answer where in Catholicism is the call to take action over others as their employer, as their law makers, as their executive civil servants, as their judges in the legal system?
I ask because I thought we Catholics were to be on our best behavior, set an example for others to freely follow or not, and love well.
I can’t find anything in my Catholic upbringing that tells me I should trounce on anybody else’s civil rights, not even to save the life inside another person against that person’s will, and certainly not because I imagine someone’s sex life is different than what some Bishops approve of, even though I may practice the exact same sexual activities alone or with a partner of any gender.

Maybe someone can respond with, “... I found it Peter, you missed Catechism page 101 where the Pope and Bishops interpreted revelation for us all, telling us that we have superior rights to other people’s rights in the following situations ...” ... or something like that.
Anyone?
Anyone?

Posted by Sue (old) on Tuesday, Nov, 6, 2012 7:17 PM (EDT):

Thanks Howard. I may only be a Hi School graduate, but I am not dumb. Peter is just angry at the Catholic Church for his own reasons. I worked in a State Mental Hospital in the Social Service Dept. when I was young and also for Hospice in later years, so I know a little about life.

Posted by Howard on Tuesday, Nov, 6, 2012 7:05 PM (EDT):

“equal protection and due process for all within it’s jurisdiction ...”. You can’t withhold part of someone’s pay because you don’t like what they may do with the money; health insurance is part of someone’s pay.”
.
Peter Blaise, interesting way you seem to describe things, you have a very unsophiscated understanding of your own country. Pay is money you receive. Health Ins is a benefit that from the beginning of benefit negotiations by labor unions has replaced pay. There is no right to anything that has not been negotiated. If legislatures want to control employee benefits via law then the resulting law must conform to higher laws- you can’t just make things up.
.
In dozens of suits right now regarding the HHS mandate the higher laws are and will be argued in district courts and more than likely the S.C. The Becket Fund says this in it’s multiple plaintiff suit including EWTN:

“The three lawsuits challenge the government mandate as a violation of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), and the Administrative Procedures Act (APA).
.
Under the First Amendment, we argue that the mandate (1) is neither neutral nor generally applicable and imposes a substantial burden in violation of the Free Exercise Clause, (2) intentionally discriminates against religious beliefs in violation of the Free Exercise Clause, (3) imposes its requirements on some religions but not on others in violation of the Free Exercise Clause, (4) prefers some denominations over others and places a selective burden on our clients in violation of the Establishment Clause, (5) compels our clients to provide counseling and education on subjects that violate their religious beliefs in violation of the Free Speech Clause, (6) unconstitutionally forces our clients to associate with actions and beliefs that are against their religious convictions, and (7) gives a government agency the “unbridled discretion” to decide which organizations can be exempted from the mandate and thus have their First Amendment rights accommodated.

We also argue that the mandate violates RFRA—a federal civil rights statute sponsored by Ted Kennedy and signed into law by President Clinton—because the mandate places a substantial burden on our clients’ religious exercise without a compelling government interest that is narrowly tailored to meet that interest.
.
The lawsuits seek declaratory judgments which are statements from the court that the mandate and the enforcement of it against our clients violate the First Amendment, RFRA, or the APA, and an order prohibiting the government from enforcing the mandate against our clients and any other religious group that cannot pay for these drugs and services because of their religious convictions.”
.
http://www.becketfund.org/ewtn/

Posted by Sue (old) on Tuesday, Nov, 6, 2012 6:58 PM (EDT):

Peter: you are nitpicking, Whoever wins the election is the person with the majority of votes from the citizens via the delegates. Majority rules. We are not a dictatorship.
As to the Catholic Church again. WRONG AGAIN PETER: You said “such as inflicting some “group” like the Catholic church hierarchy’s preferences as legally enforced restriction on other people’s civil and human rights.”
Why can you not understand, as it has been said many times on the blog, the Catholic Church is not in any way suggesting or stating in any way a restriction on other people’s civil and human rights. Obama care is on Catholics and their Church. He is restricting the rights of the beliefs of the Catholic Church, which has always been for “LIFE”. Why should he throw our beliefs out the window. He is not a true Christian… If that healthcare had been put up for a vote by the people, it would never have passed. Remember what Pelosi said “when it passes you shall know what is in it.” We still don’t know everything that is in it besides “health”. Have you read the 2,000 pages. Does it take 2,000 pages to set up a healthcare program? What does it say about euthanasia. He has restricted many doctors and hospitals from doing what they know best for the patient. I know this first hand from what my daughter just went through today. Read what the AMA says about it. You are just getting too aggravating to me and I do not believe you are a Catholic…you just like arguing for the fun of it. So don’t answer me anymore…..I am through!

Posted by TA on Tuesday, Nov, 6, 2012 6:34 PM (EDT):

Peter, please listen. I became a Catholic in part because it was reasonable to put the common good above emotional. I chose Catholicism and continue to examine its precepts, its division of personal values and values that must be upheld for the common good. I continue to examine and reason and still choose Catholicism.
Abortion is about the right to life of the unborn child. Ca not a woman carry a child for 9 months and allow it life? Is ti reasonable to say the child is disposable because it is small? because it is dependent upon its mother for life? When this whole debate started I knew abortion was wrong (unreasonable) but I didn’t get the connection to birth control and euthanasia—-the whole slipppery slope thing that we are now facing. Get this Peter: my atheist lawyerfeminist friend got it and tried to explain it to me, as we are now trying to explain it to you. She was not catholic! she was an atheist. Obama has an agenda and it TEACHES, clearly teaches what is “right” and “wrong” pertaining to life and sex. An agenda is different from a plan; an agenda is manipulative. Read some Planned Parenthood literature aimed at “educatiing” children and ask yourself about the possible long term consequesnces.

This election has gone beyond social issues, it smears catholics (we are not homophobic, do not abuse others, and are not seeking to impose Catholicism-it is the agenda that has made religion an issue adn you believe the lies. Yes. You will meet Catholics and Republicans and Black people who are extremists but since when did defending the life of the defenseless become a religious issue? Oh?! SInce the agaenda needed a valiant stance for their campaign.

Posted by Peter Blaise on Tuesday, Nov, 6, 2012 5:16 PM (EDT):

Earlier, Sue (old) wrote, “... The biggest problem today is that
Obama’s platform wants to force Catholic businesses, hospital, adoption
agencies, etc. to conform to his healthcare bill, in that their insurance
should include abortion and contraceptives, etc ...”.

No, that’s the US Constitution and Amendments saying “... equal protection and due process for all within it’s jurisdiction ...”. You can’t withhold part of someone’s pay because you don’t like what they may do with the money; health insurance is part of someone’s pay.

Also, Sue (old) wrote, “... you don’t run a country according to
what every “group” wants ... you run it according to the majority. In a
Democracy, the majority rules, you know that ...”

No, it’s a constitutional democracy where the constitution rules, not any majority. But I like your idea that “... you don’t run a country according to what every “group” wants ...” such as inflicting some “group” like the Catholic church hierarchy’s preferences as legally enforced restriction on other people’s civil and human rights.

If I understand the opening post and many agreeing responders, you believe in civil rights for folks you approve of, but no civil rights for folks you don’t approve of ... yet nowhere has anyone properly justified or attributed why you think that is a Catholic approach to anything, let alone the right thing to do.

Posted by Kathleen on Tuesday, Nov, 6, 2012 4:35 PM (EDT):

Sue (old) ,
We had a voter ID law in Georgia & folks complained it was too hard to get to the Dept of Motor Vehicles, so they sent mobile unit vans around to communities so people without vehicles could have a State ID made at their convenience in the van.Hardly anyone took up the offer.

I’m voting this afternoon, (with my ID.)

Posted by Sue (old) on Tuesday, Nov, 6, 2012 2:25 PM (EDT):

Peter: You like being for the underdog, so it seems…but you are wrong…the underdog is usually a group who wants everyone to approve of their beliefs. The Cath.Church does not impose its beliefs on anyone. They only let us Catholics know how Jesus wants us to live & it is not imposed on us, you are either Catholic no not. The biggest problem today is that Obama’s platform wants to force Catholic businesses, hospital, adoption agencies, etc. to conform to his healthcare bill, in that their insurance should include abortion and contraceptives, etc. You know this, but you go on about how bad we are. I wish every one here could have met my new Argentinian friend. First time in my home and knowing I was Catholic said “I do not like the CC and I hate the Pope”. Did I get angry and argue with her, NO, I just said “why?”. She lived all her young life under the rule of a dictator, Perone, I believe his name was. Argentina was over 90% Catholic and he controlled the Church. I did not understand all she said because of her accent, so I got on the computer and read about her problem. It is called “the Dirty War”. She had a terrible childhood. She is now 79, came to the U.S. in 1962, lived in Calif. until recently, worked for Reagan’s Presidential election. She is 100% American and I saw her at the voting poles this morning. Yes, she has reason to feel as she does toward the Church [she separates the CC from Cath.people]. Some day maybe her heart will change towards our Church. Right now, she is an avid Baptist. ;o) I cannot judge her…like I said to my new French friend, who married an Am. soldier during WWII., When I was in H.S. and lived 16 miles north of NYC, we were all afraid of the city being bombed and our small town along with it. We students were finger printed just in case, for I.D. It was scary, I told her, but what she went through was worse because every time the sirens went off, they headed for the bomb shelters. She was right in the middle of it. Both these two friends of mine, absolutely loves this country.
I guess what I am getting at is that you don’t run a country according to what every “group” wants…you run it according to the majority. In a Democracy, the majority rules, you know that. I, personally believe that Obama has no right getting into religious beliefs [sharia, yes, because killing is against our law] but my church believes in LIFE. My Argentinian friend said that Obama reminds her of their Dictator, just like Hitler, things were done gradually. So people had better be careful.

Posted by Sue (old) on Tuesday, Nov, 6, 2012 1:46 PM (EDT):

I VOTED THIS MORN AT 10:30 A.M. [My privilege]

Yes, they had my name and address on the books from when I registered and YES, I SHOWED MY I.D. and I am a born in New York State, American Citizen, whose parents became citizens before I was born.

I HAVE ABSOLUTELY NO PROBLEM SHOWING MY I.D. AS I HAVE NOTHING TO HIDE!

Posted by savvy on Tuesday, Nov, 6, 2012 1:19 PM (EDT):

Sue,

I posted that documentary, because this is the same crowd that yells, “do not impose your values on me”, but they impose it on cultures/religions that do not share them. The only thing standing in their way is the Catholic church and other religions.

Do you wonder why people hate the immoral West so much now?

Posted by TA on Tuesday, Nov, 6, 2012 11:35 AM (EDT):

Peter, the Catholic Church does not force their moral teachings on anyone - even the people in the pews. It is one thing to hold a personal moral code and yet another to force it upon others in the name of good, which is what Obama is proposing.
Obama’s moral agenda has reigned in other eras and the pendulum always swings back when the social ills result in fallen empires.
And as for the separation of sin from sinner—the Churhc teraches not to judge Obama (no hatered or contempt allowed for this grings even further division); however, the action must be judged according to the likely consequences. Again, read some history and perhaps some philosophy.

Posted by Howard on Tuesday, Nov, 6, 2012 10:57 AM (EDT):

Peter Blaise, you have an interesting list of causes that you have aligned yourself with and have associated B.O. as the only champion. As you recall 20th century history you must acknowledge the opinions early on in the political life of the Nazi and Fascist parties – good was accomplished for the standard of living and feeling of self worth of their countries. What was missing was a clear view of the future, except by a few in world politics, until it was too late.
-
As a thinking human being and a Catholic we rate and prioritize the moral wrong and eventual effect of these actions you have outlined. It is obvious you are opposed to our moral thinking and also come into conflict with Christian thinking and beliefs in general.
-
This alignment with behavior and acts that we consider evil will put us in opposition to all evil and you and B.O. and most Democrats perpetually unless you open your eyes and learn.

Posted by Sue (old) on Tuesday, Nov, 6, 2012 10:48 AM (EDT):

Peter: I shall repeat myself and say: If you study what the Catholic Church believes, it is all for the betterment of society and humanity. We may not like everything but you know, as kids, we did not like everything our parents taught us either. Open your eyes! You just reiterated to me 15 things that the President has done and 10 were for homosexuals/lesbians. The Church’s rule on marriage is to protect the family, it is not hate against anyone. My gay nephews were well educated [both attorneys]...one in Cath. Schools through college. They have their lifestyle which the CC disapproves of and they just don’t consider themselves Catholic and do as they please. They are not hypocrite about it. You approve of everything Obama has passed, most of which are anti-Catholic beliefs, yet you are on a Catholic blog. Are you Catholic or not? NO, I WILL NOT VOTE FOR OBAMA, I happen to approve of all that my Church teaches. Also when has the Catholic Church been against women? Not the Church I know. Peter, the Presidency is a job. If you owned a business and you fired someone for not doing a good job and hired me [say] and I find the job difficult so all I do is blame it on the previous guy for not doing a better job, then I too should be fired. He had four yrs. to straighten things out and made things worse, why? because he appointed cronies instead of people who really knew their business. Everyone knows a Pres. does not “know” every phase of the job, but he has to appoint the right people to help him. Obama knows nothing about “business” because he was a social worker, that is his mindset.
@Savvy: thank you for answering Peter on the Nazi bit. I did not like the idea of him tying his beliefs on what my husband fought for in WWII. That did not sit right with me. As to immigrants: never speak to me about what is going on today with illegal immigrants. If they come here illegally, they are “illegal”. My parents were immigrants. I found their passage here in 1895-my Mother age 10 and my Father 1910-age 21. I have their ship’s manifest, list of people on the ship, name of the ship and picture of the ship. My Mom told me, they had physical exams when they landed at Ellis Island and those with a cough or rash were sent back. [consumption..syphilis] You think it was easy for them? My grandfather came first and 2 yrs later [after he established himself as a barber in the Bronx] sent for wife and 5 kids ages 13 to 3, [fun on the voyage? no way, they were in steerage with people vomiting, etc. They had it hard, never complained, worked and asked for nothing from anyone, including the government. THESE WERE THE IMMIGRANTS WHO BUILT THIS COUNTRY, THE ITALIANs, POLES, IRISH, ETC. NOT THE IMMIGRANT OF TODAY! (who ask for everything, because they have “advocates”, which the early immigrants did not have. To protect us, every person coming into the U.S. definitely should be checked to see if they are legal and to see if they are citizens and to see if they have a driver’s license, etc. Everyone on this blog has had to show their identification at one time or another. Personally, I have nothing to hide.
I promised not to digress and rant so long, but at my age, there is so much in my memory. Thank God I still have a memory. I am Blessed. ;o)

Posted by Peter Blaise on Tuesday, Nov, 6, 2012 10:05 AM (EDT):

Earlier, TA wrote, “... Obama ... has his own moral agenda and is ready to force it on anyone and everyone ...”

Oh? And what moral agenda is that?

“... I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States ...”

THAT moral agenda?

Otherwise, I have no idea what anyone is thinking of when they say someone is forcing a moral agenda on anyone else ... unless you’re speaking of suppressing the civil and human rights of women, gays, and so on because some folks just don’t like them, morally.

Posted by TA on Tuesday, Nov, 6, 2012 9:41 AM (EDT):

Thank you Savvy. Peter, you appear to have reified Obama…he is neither God nor a King nor is he a savior of the American people. He appears to be a man who has his own moral agenda and is ready to force it on anyone and everyone. He sells dangerous social principles with sweet sounding platitudes. How you can compare his actions to those who fought in WWII to ensure freedom from a forced moral code is beyond me.
Romney may not be perfect but he is a safer candidate on many levels…
Peter read Margaret Sanger’s original works, they are condescending of the Black people. Watch the documentary Savvy speaks of….preferably before you vote.

Posted by Vivianne on Tuesday, Nov, 6, 2012 12:59 AM (EDT):

This article is sooo true! Thank you for writing it! Obama can take everything, but not our souls!

Posted by savvy on Monday, Nov, 5, 2012 11:42 PM (EDT):

Gays Rights or Sexual Anarchy?

“The Obama administration is engaging in a form of cultural imperialism by promoting hyper-sexual ethics in developing nations, according to a new documentary.

“There is a whole movement in which many people in the Obama administration are involved— Hillary Clinton at the forefront — that is pushing the ‘sexual rights’ agenda,” said Sharon Slater, producer of Cultural Imperialism, The Sexual Rights Agenda.

“The sexual rights ideology believes that the most fundamental human right is the right to unrestricted sexual pleasure,” said Slater, who is the president of Family Watch International, a UN watchdog organization that advocates for traditional family values.

“Anything that is seen as a barrier to sexual pleasure is viewed by them as a violation to human rights,” she said. “Sexual rights is basically about promoting sexual anarchy, especially to children.”

Slater said that she made the half-hour documentary as a response to African, Islamic, and Caribbean United Nations (UN) delegates who “constantly complained” to her organization about pressure from the “U.S. government, UN agencies, and other rich Western countries” to endorse a pan-sexual agenda.

The documentary makes the case that the West’s imposition of “sexual rights” on these countries erodes their religious and cultural values, leading to the demise of the natural family unit and resulting social chaos.

The documentary presents evidence that the Obama administration “blackmails” poor countries into implementing laws and policies that advance “sexual rights” by threatening to withhold aid.

One piece of evidence presented in the documentary is a December 2011 White House memorandum issued by President Obama that calls all “heads of executive departments and agencies” to “engaged abroad to ensure that U.S. diplomacy and foreign assistance promote and protect the human rights of LGBT [lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender] persons.”

Section three of the memorandum on foreign assistance states: “Agencies involved with foreign aid, assistance, and development shall enhance their ongoing efforts to ensure regular Federal Government engagement with governments, citizens, civil society, and the private sector in order to build respect for the human rights of LGBT persons.”

Slater argues that “what the Obama directive actually does is to direct all U.S. agencies to pressure countries to not only legalize and destigmatize LGBT sexual behavior, but to also encourage countries to embrace LGBT lifestyles.”

“They were being blackmailed, bribed, and bullied into accepting sexual rights that run counter to their religious and cultural values,” she said.

The documentary includes interviews with Dr. Norman Hearst, a family medicine specialist with emphasis on HIV prevention; Dr. Edward Green, former director of Harvard’s AIDS Prevention Research Project; Sarah Flood-Beaubrun, former St. Lucia Delegate to the UN; and many more.

Various UN delegates from developing countries speak out in the documentary about how they are being bullied by the West into accepting the full gamut of “sexual rights,” despite overwhelming resistance within their countries.

“Sexual rights is a Trojan horse term that puts pressure on countries to change their laws and to advance these kind of behaviors and to protect them,” Slater said.

Watch the five minute trailer and the full documentary here.

http://www.familywatchinternational.org/sffww/

Posted by savvy on Monday, Nov, 5, 2012 11:41 PM (EDT):

Gays Rights or Sexual Anarchy?

“The Obama administration is engaging in a form of cultural imperialism by promoting hyper-sexual ethics in developing nations, according to a new documentary.

“There is a whole movement in which many people in the Obama administration are involved— Hillary Clinton at the forefront — that is pushing the ‘sexual rights’ agenda,” said Sharon Slater, producer of Cultural Imperialism, The Sexual Rights Agenda.

Slater explained to LifeSiteNews.com that “broad elastic term” is used by Western governments to push “contraception, sex-change operations, same-sex marriage, homosexual, bisexual, and transgender behavior, prostitution, and comprehensive sexuality education for children.”

“The sexual rights ideology believes that the most fundamental human right is the right to unrestricted sexual pleasure,” said Slater, who is the president of Family Watch International, a UN watchdog organization that advocates for traditional family values.

“Anything that is seen as a barrier to sexual pleasure is viewed by them as a violation to human rights,” she said. “Sexual rights is basically about promoting sexual anarchy, especially to children.”

Slater said that she made the half-hour documentary as a response to African, Islamic, and Caribbean United Nations (UN) delegates who “constantly complained” to her organization about pressure from the “U.S. government, UN agencies, and other rich Western countries” to endorse a pan-sexual agenda.

The documentary makes the case that the West’s imposition of “sexual rights” on these countries erodes their religious and cultural values, leading to the demise of the natural family unit and resulting social chaos.

The documentary presents evidence that the Obama administration “blackmails” poor countries into implementing laws and policies that advance “sexual rights” by threatening to withhold aid.

One piece of evidence presented in the documentary is a December 2011 White House memorandum issued by President Obama that calls all “heads of executive departments and agencies” to “engaged abroad to ensure that U.S. diplomacy and foreign assistance promote and protect the human rights of LGBT [lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender] persons.”

Section three of the memorandum on foreign assistance states: “Agencies involved with foreign aid, assistance, and development shall enhance their ongoing efforts to ensure regular Federal Government engagement with governments, citizens, civil society, and the private sector in order to build respect for the human rights of LGBT persons.”

Slater argues that “what the Obama directive actually does is to direct all U.S. agencies to pressure countries to not only legalize and destigmatize LGBT sexual behavior, but to also encourage countries to embrace LGBT lifestyles.”

“They were being blackmailed, bribed, and bullied into accepting sexual rights that run counter to their religious and cultural values,” she said.

The documentary includes interviews with Dr. Norman Hearst, a family medicine specialist with emphasis on HIV prevention; Dr. Edward Green, former director of Harvard’s AIDS Prevention Research Project; Sarah Flood-Beaubrun, former St. Lucia Delegate to the UN; and many more.

Various UN delegates from developing countries speak out in the documentary about how they are being bullied by the West into accepting the full gamut of “sexual rights,” despite overwhelming resistance within their countries.

“Sexual rights is a Trojan horse term that puts pressure on countries to change their laws and to advance these kind of behaviors and to protect them,” Slater said.

Watch the five minute trailer and the full documentary here.

http://www.familywatchinternational.org/sffww/

Posted by Peter Blaise on Monday, Nov, 5, 2012 9:03 PM (EDT):

Dear Sue (old), please forgive us, there’s nothing personal here, we meant no insult, it it just a web chat, no one knows each other, and without face-to-face contact, there’s no way to put our words into friendly conversational context where irony, factitiousness, and sarcasm, so unintended interpretations abound, sorry! I’m confident that we’re all just trying to get along.

I’d like to pick up from your comment that your husband fought the Nazis in WWII, and tie that in with the Obama versus Civil Rights theme of the opening post.

Obama is picking up the fight against the Nazis, the fight your husband participated in, but a never ending fight nonetheless.

In the 1930s, Nazi sympathizers here in the US started The Pioneer Fund before World War II, and recently they donated a great deal of money to John Tanton ...

—John Tanton, racist creator and head of F.A.I.R., created current wave of hysteria over immigrants, authored “attrition” as scheme to rid the US of non-whites one layer at a time, hired Kris Kobach ...

—Kris Kobach, author of Arizona State Bill SB1070, gets money from training Police how to enforce SB1070 (eg, passengers in a car, residents in a house, all should be asked for ID or be arrested), makes money defending his intentionally poorly written un-Constitutional laws afterwards in court, hired by Russell Pearce ...

—Arizona Senator Russell Pearce, participated and disseminated racist white supremacist propaganda, fostered SB1070 and pushed it through to be signed by the Governor ...

—Arizona Governor Jan Brewer, previously tried to prohibit Hispanics from voting (Arizona was majority Hispanic and native before statehood), removed 100,000 majority Hispanic voters from registrations, tried to require photo ID to vote, illegally equivalent to a poll tax, via Prop 200, and sees SB1070 as another barricade to Hispanic voters who should now be afraid to vote for fear of arrest on the way to the voting booth for lack of carrying proof that they are US Citizens, the Governor knowing that there are local police hungering to raid the local Hispanic communities ...

—Arizona Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio, deputized anybody to help sweep through Hispanic neighborhoods and round up the “live stock” for intimidation and “legal” processing ...

—Money: private prisons have been lobbying Arizona and other states to increase the number of laws that call for incarceration of anyone and everyone.

The Obama administration sued to dismantle the Nazi initiated, paid for, and backed SB1070, as I say, picking up where your husband left off fighting Nazis.

Where was the Catholic church hierarchy, civil rights wise, through all this Nazi activity right here in the US today, and why would the National Catholic Register asses Obama’s civil rights record without acknowledging at least this and more?

More?

—Along with Congressional Democrats, Obama advocated for and signed the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act, which made it a federal crime to assault anyone based on his or her sexual orientation or gender identity.

—Pushed through, signed and demanded the Pentagon enact a repeal of the discriminatory “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” policy that forced soldiers to lie in order to be eligible to fight for their country, and put our troops at risk by disqualifying many qualified soldiers from helping.

—Changed his mind and publicly expressed support for the right to enter into a same-sex marriage.

—Issued a Presidential Memorandum reaffirming the rights of gay couples to make medical decisions for each other.

—Wrote and signed an Executive Order establishing a White House Council on Women and Girls to ensure that all Cabinet and Cabinet-level agencies evaluate the effect of their policies and programs on women and families.

—Signed the Democratic-sponsored Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, which restored basic protections against pay discrimination for women and other workers. This was after the GOP blocked the bill in 2007. Only 5 Republican Senators voted for the bill.

—Expanded funding for the Violence Against Women Act.

—Under his guidance, National Labor Relations Board issued final rules that require all employers to prominently post employees’ rights where all employees or prospective employees can see it, including websites and intranets, beginning November 2011.

—Issued an order requiring hospitals to allow visitation by same-sex couples.

—Appointed Kareem Dale as the first ever Special Assistant to the President for Disability Policy.

—Helped Democrats in Congress pass and signed the Civil Rights History Act.

Now, some here have advocated against recognizing and honoring the civil rights of women and gays, but that does not alter the facts that Obama has been active and progressive in pursuing civil rights.

Though, in the past, Romney backed women’s and gay rights when that would get him elected, he has proven himself ready to say anything to please whatever audience is standing in his way on his power trip.

Sue (old), please vote for the one candidate who is picking up where your husband left off fighting Nazis right here and now today in the US.

Posted by Peter Blaise on Monday, Nov, 5, 2012 8:52 PM (EDT):

Dear Sue (old), please forgive us, there’s nothing personal here, we meant no insult, it it just a web chat, no one knows each other, and without face-to-face contact, there’s no way to put our words into friendly conversational context where irony, factitiousness, and sarcasm, so unintended interpretations abound, sorry! I’m confident that we’re all just trying to get along.

I’d like to pick up from your comment that your husband fought the Nazis in WWII, and tie that in with the Obama versus Civil Rights theme of the opening post.

Obama is picking up the fight against the Nazis, the fight your husband participated in, but a never ending fight nonetheless.

In the 1930s, Nazi sympathizers here in the US started The Pioneer Fund before World War II, and recently they donated a great deal of money to John Tanton ...

—John Tanton, racist creator and head of F.A.I.R., created current wave of hysteria over immigrants, authored “attrition” as scheme to rid the US of non-whites one layer at a time, hired Kris Kobach ...

—Kris Kobach, author of Arizona State Bill SB1070, gets money from training Police how to enforce SB1070 (eg, passengers in a car, residents in a house, all should be asked for ID or be arrested), makes money defending his intentionally poorly written un-Constitutional laws afterwards in court, hired by Russell Pearce ...

—Arizona Senator Russell Pearce, participated and disseminated racist white supremacist propaganda, fostered SB1070 and pushed it through to be signed by the Governor ...

—Arizona Governor Jan Brewer, previously tried to prohibit Hispanics from voting (Arizona was majority Hispanic and native before statehood), removed 100,000 majority Hispanic voters from registrations, tried to require photo ID to vote, illegally equivalent to a poll tax, via Prop 200, and sees SB1070 as another barricade to Hispanic voters who should now be afraid to vote for fear of arrest on the way to the voting booth for lack of carrying proof that they are US Citizens, the Governor knowing that there are local police hungering to raid the local Hispanic communities ...

—Arizona Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio, deputized anybody to help sweep through Hispanic neighborhoods and round up the “live stock” for intimidation and “legal” processing ...

—Money: private prisons have been lobbying Arizona and other states to increase the number of laws that call for incarceration of anyone and everyone, see http://www.npr.org/2010/10/28/130833741/prison-economics-help-drive-ariz-immigration-law ...

The Obama administration sued to dismantle the Nazi initiated, paid for, and backed SB1070, as I say, picking up where your husband left off fighting Nazis.

Where was the Catholic church hierarchy, civil rights wise, through all this Nazi activity right here in the US today, and why would the National Catholic Register asses Obama’s civil rights record without acknowledging at least this and more?

More?

—Along with Congressional Democrats, Obama advocated for and signed the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act, which made it a federal crime to assault anyone based on his or her sexual orientation or gender identity. http://bit.ly/gsMSJ7

—Pushed through, signed and demanded the Pentagon enact a repeal of the discriminatory “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” policy that forced soldiers to lie in order to be eligible to fight for their country, and put our troops at risk by disqualifying many qualified soldiers from helping. http://bit.ly/fdahuH http://bit.ly/mZV4Pz

—Changed his mind and publicly expressed support for the right to enter into a same-sex marriage. http://bit.ly/JsiFKp

—Issued a Presidential Memorandum reaffirming the rights of gay couples to make medical decisions for each other. http://1.usa.gov/aUueGT

—Wrote and signed an Executive Order establishing a White House Council on Women and Girls to ensure that all Cabinet and Cabinet-level agencies evaluate the effect of their policies and programs on women and families. http://bit.ly/e1puTk http://1.usa.gov/rFfqMM

—Signed the Democratic-sponsored Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, which restored basic protections against pay discrimination for women and other workers. This was after the GOP blocked the bill in 2007. Only 5 Republican Senators voted for the bill. http://bit.ly/fT3Cxg

—Expanded funding for the Violence Against Women Act. http://1.usa.gov/dSbI0x

—Under his guidance, National Labor Relations Board issued final rules that require all employers to prominently post employees’ rights where all employees or prospective employees can see it, including websites and intranets, beginning November 2011. http://1.usa.gov/qu2EhQ

—Issued an order requiring hospitals to allow visitation by same-sex couples. reut.rs/llNJek

—Appointed Kareem Dale as the first ever Special Assistant to the President for Disability Policy. http://1.usa.gov/fi5IY0

—Helped Democrats in Congress pass and signed the Civil Rights History Act. http://bit.ly/th0JC8

Now, some here have advocated against recognizing and honoring the civil rights of women and gays, but that does not alter the facts that Obama has been active and progressive in pursuing civil rights.

Though, in the past, Romney backed women’s and gay rights when that would get him elected, he has proven himself ready to say anything to please whatever audience is standing in his way on his power trip.

Sue (old), please vote for the one candidate who is picking up where your husband left off fighting Nazis right here and now today in the US.

Posted by Sue (old) on Monday, Nov, 5, 2012 6:00 PM (EDT):

I cannot believe I have been on this blog so much, but it is right up my ally. When I lived in Southern Virginia we had a young Pastor who had a sign on his bumper “Jesus Was A Jew”. That begins to tell you the kind of Pastor he was. He belonged to the Ministerial Assoc. in the area [I never knew Cath.Priests could] Father was President and he spoke to all the Ministers about what he would like to do about Lent.
On Ash Wednesday all the churches in the area [including a Baptist Black Church]were invited to our Church for Ashes and a service [Ashes optional] and a light lunch. Each Wednesday we went to a different Church for the Lenten Service and a light lunch. It was so wonderful in that it brought us all together and helped us to understand the different denominations. We became friends. [nothing like food to bring people together] Then on Thanksgiving we had a Food Drive and the baskets were put together at the Jewish Temple. I really miss that Church.

Posted by TA on Monday, Nov, 5, 2012 5:54 PM (EDT):

@Fr Bruce wrt I have often found the Church in America silent and absent on the issues of the Civil Rights movement. And unfortunately racism is alive and being practiced by too many so-called conservative Catholics

Could you please describe what specific aspects of civil rights the church has been silent and absent about, what you mean by racism and by so-called conservative catholics.

Are you saying that conservative Cathoilcs are Republican and racist? and that somehow these are all connected?

Do you support Obama care?

Posted by Sue (old) on Monday, Nov, 5, 2012 5:48 PM (EDT):

@Tim Drake: I wonder how many on this blog has listened to Bishop E.W. Jackson on u-tube. http://youtu.be/Bfrd8vRBla4

I did and he is in harmony with the Catholic Church as well as some other denominations and yes he is African-American, though he does not like the hyphen. He said he is plain American. WORTH LISTENING TO

Posted by Sue (old) on Monday, Nov, 5, 2012 5:26 PM (EDT):

Lori: you are right what you said about abortion being legal, but since we don’t know the President or many of the Democrats personally, we can only speak to the fact that they are Pro-choice. Also the Catholic Church is not imposing their will on anyone in this matter….they are speaking to the members of the Catholic Church and also (at)the new Healthcare [Obama’s] which will force Catholic Hospitals, etc. to offer insurance that covers abortion and contraceptives.
@Fr.Wilkinson: I don’t know what State you are in, but I have gone to Catholic Churches in five different states and we always accepted people of all color. In fact the Church I went to in Virginia has had two Black priests from Kenya, and the people, mostly white,have no problem with his color.
Also I really don’t believe conservatives are against Pres. Obama because of color….it is his Platform.

Posted by savvy on Monday, Nov, 5, 2012 5:19 PM (EDT):

No side is perfect or is going to bring an end to R v W. Only the courts can do this. The issue with Obama is his aggressive assault on Catholic institutions. We are Catholic, before we are Republican or Democrat.

Posted by Fr. Bruce Wilkinson on Monday, Nov, 5, 2012 5:03 PM (EDT):

There have been some great replies to the nonsense article that Barack Obama betrayed the Civil Rights movement. I will only add that as a Catholic priest and a Black American I have often found the Church in America silent and absent on the issues of the Civil Rights movement. And unfortunately racism is alive and being practiced by too many so-called conservative Catholics. We need to get our own house in order.

Posted by Lori on Monday, Nov, 5, 2012 5:00 PM (EDT):

@Chas, I couldn’t agree more. If President Obama had pushed a Civil Rights agenda, most people on the right would have cried out that that was all he wanted to do when he became president and those who are “afraid” of the color of his skin would have put up an even bigger roadblock and condemned him for his Civil Rights leanings. In so many ways, he can’t win and yet he continued to turn the other cheek and tried hard to work for all people, not just certain groups. And by the way, most democrats—including the President I’m sure—are not for abortion. NO ONE wants a woman to end her pregancy. But it is legal in this country and a woman should have the right to say what happens to her. She will have to answer to God for that decision, and no one else. Do you think that eliminating RvW is going to stop abortions? Unfortunately and sadly it won’t…

Posted by T. Drake on Monday, Nov, 5, 2012 4:52 PM (EDT):

A friend forwarded me the following video link, in which Bishop E.W. Jackson articulates the very same argument, but only as an African-American can. It’s well worth watching. http://youtu.be/Bfrd8vRBla4

Posted by Kevin J. Banet on Monday, Nov, 5, 2012 1:59 PM (EDT):

How can Peter above, say that Tim Drake should stop “writing tired, valueless blog regurgitations”? I count 11,800 words of animated commentary written by readers who have responded to his article, in less than three days! This would fill a book. You may disagree with Mr. Drake, Peter, but his words are anything but tired and valueless.

Posted by T. Drake on Monday, Nov, 5, 2012 11:39 AM (EDT):

Peter,
The focus of the article is how the sexual left has taken over the Civil Rights movement, and how the president has abandoned the movement’s original founding through his embrace of tax-payer funding of contraception, widespread abortion and advocacy for Planned Parenthood, and same-sex “marriage.”

Leo was the one who brought up the poverty question. It was not me. I was merely responding to it. I will not allow my own financial situation to trump basic Christian morality.

I do find it incredible that you place the state of the economy entirely on President Bush, who hasn’t been in a leadership position over the past four years. Unemployment and the numbers of people receiving government assistance are much higher now than when President Obama took office.

You recommend not “writing tired, valueless blog regurgitations.”

To be a member of the Church in the modern age, it seems, is to swim upstream, to resist the advancing secular agenda, to be counter-cultural. It is, in fact, your rhetoric which is “tired.” It is all I hear when I turn on the radio, or the television, or pick up the newspaper, or go to the theater.

Posted by Howard on Monday, Nov, 5, 2012 11:31 AM (EDT):

Sue, I admire your fire I have a relative who is 83 and has also lost her husband. My disappointment with her is that she says she doesn’t have and interest in political issues because she has few years to live. I remind her that she has grandchildren to be concerned about and that sometimes wakes her up to responsibility.

She is not dull, has an advanced degree and worked as an administrator. The problem is NOT THINKING at all, not reevaluating a position in the light of change. When the issue of abortion comes up she is still stuck in the 70s with the “blog of tissue” and “not really a person” argument of the feminists at that time – before ultrasound technology and DNA. She remembers having been paid less that a man for the same job in 1952 and has carried that era into 2012.

I do give her credit for being disappointed with B.O. He seems to have let her down in many ways and is ready for a change – aren’t we all?

Posted by Sue (old) on Monday, Nov, 5, 2012 11:12 AM (EDT):

Patti: I read your article on your website. Please everyone on this blog, read it! Also, it really is too bad that this article was not put into every bulletin, in every Catholic Church this past Sunday 11/4.
Not a thing was said in our bulletin and I am very discouraged at the fact that nothing was said about this very important issue. Just another sermon on the bible, which is fine, but our Church is under attack and so many don’t seem to know it. In fact, it was announced that the 2nd collection next Sun. will be for those harmed by Hurricane Sandy, but we did not say a special prayer for them as a congregation. We have so many in our parish from NY,NJ; it would have been a nice gesture.

Posted by Patti Armstrong on Monday, Nov, 5, 2012 11:03 AM (EDT):

I share your rant, Sue. Of course the Dems aren’t all that great. BIg problems in that party. It’s just that it was once more concerned with the poor and downtrodden in a way that would not include rabidly pushing abortion. I always vote the most prolife candidate.

Posted by Sue (old) on Monday, Nov, 5, 2012 10:24 AM (EDT):

@Patti Armstrong: Actually Patti, the Catholic Church always leaned Democrat, because of their Social Justice stance, but as you can see the abortion issue and the mandate imposed on them has made them change their minds. People don’t understand that the government is wrong when they say that FDR ended the Great Depression…he helped somewhat with the National Recovery Act and the CCC.[Civilian Conservation Corp] My brother at age 18 could not find a job and joined the CCC. They built a lot of the Federal Parks around the country. Poor guy was stationed in Washington State and he said he never saw so much rain. [In later yrs. after I was married with children we vacationed at a Federal Park in Oklahoma that was built by the CCC..beautiful park,naturally improved over the yrs.] Anyway he was given a salary and the government sent half home to my parents. FDR did little things to help but it did not end the Depression. Another time I was walking home from grade school with my Mom and I said to her “Mom what is Mr. so-so doing? She said “oh he got a job with the Town and is cleaning up the gutters” [we did not have machine that did it] WWII ENDED THE DEPRESSION. That is when the factories started building planes, tanks,jeeps etc., plus uniforms, you name it. Everybody was working. My two older sisters worked at Camp Shanks, a debarkation camp built near our hometown. They were working in the office and doing the same job as the WAACS [female soldier] who made $20 a month to my sister’s $90 a month each. There was a song out at the time called “Twenty Dollars A Week,Once a Month”.
Yes, I too am sick of the war on women rant. I am 85 and I NEVER felt less than my husband. Everything we did within our marriage, we did together. I worked in the home, he worked outside the home and his remark to me was “what I earn outside the home is just as much yours as mine…we both work together for our family” Great Guy, the best! When women became better educated, going to college, they wanted to use their knowledge within the workforce, thus two salaries within a family and that is when prices started to rise. Am I being simplistic, yes. But that was the beginning of the big economy. When I was first married 6-room homes were $10,000 in NYS, and they would sell for 400,000 today. I am digressing but I wanted to show that I rely on what I lived through and knew what was going on at the time, not what is twisted around by the government in order to get what they want.
Just one more remark from my wonderful Mother who had so much wisdom, she always said “The Democrats will keep you down by giving to you…the Republicans will raise you up by giving you a job”.
Unfortunately there are too many people today who would rather “take” from the government…..that is what my rant to Leo and Peter was all about.
My parents and my husband and I were always able to pay our way and really felt fortunate that we could. Not that we had much we did not…I live on exactly $1,058 a month SS, paying all my bills, how? because I learned at an early age how to manage money, starting with paying off my house after my husband died…that helps a lot. I was offered MediCAID by my Representative in another State and I told her right over the phone that NEVER would I go on MediCAID and be treated like a bunch of cattle, I’d die first! See, when you are really poor, you are given crumbs. So the Dems aren’t all that great! Also, remember about what the Catholic Church and other denominations do for the poor across this globe we live on.

Posted by Patti Armstrong on Monday, Nov, 5, 2012 8:19 AM (EDT):

I grew up in a Catholic democrat neighborhood. Never knew a Republican. Then, abortion became legal. Democrats should have stuck with the underdog, such as the unborn—hello?—then the Catholic vote might not have split so much. Obama has especially betrayed women in a big way, but his rabid supporters don’t have a clue.I am especially sick of the War on Women rant, I just had to say a few things.

http://www.pattimaguirearmstrong.com/2012/11/prisoners-of-war.html

Posted by Sue (old) on Sunday, Nov, 4, 2012 11:34 PM (EDT):

Peter, why did you insinuate that I was voting Democrat? I never mentioned how I was going to vote….so you had to have made that up. As I said before, if you are truly Catholic and watch the Bishops on EWTN and read what they say in the Catholic Papers, then you know they are against Abortion and the Mandate the Administration is pushing on them. I already mentioned that I was against abortion. Here is another one: I have an Argentinian friend, who is now a citizen of the U.S. She does not have a computer and she wanted me to check on getting her a doctor. I called three doctor’s offices and all three said “The doctor is not taking any more Medicare Pts, he has his quota. The fourth one agreed to take her. Her command of the English language was not so great and she asked me to do it for her. The AMA is against the Obamacare also. I think you must be lonely and want to interact with people because you often contradict yourself. God Bless.

Posted by TA on Sunday, Nov, 4, 2012 11:16 PM (EDT):

Peter you are incredible in your willingness to re-construct and distort truth to support your position.
No Pope supported Hitler—read your history not just anti-Catholic propaganda. You take your VALUES to be truth and Catholic VALUES to be unsupportable but social justice is all about truth which is recognised by its consequences; however, when we re-construct history, we fai to learn from it Peter!!!!

Leo, I think this is for you, or is it Savvy? Either way, the Law teaches. Lasting change requires both Law and Order (teaching the sound reasons for the Law so that it is accepted). Order creates a society that accepts limits for the sake of the common good. These limits include the Just demand of taking responsibiity for the consequences of our actions. The teachings of the Catholic Church are in keeping with the Natural Law that orders society. Read some history,

You tell him Sue!

Posted by Sue (old) on Sunday, Nov, 4, 2012 10:21 PM (EDT):

@angela r.: As you can see on my last blog….I have so much patience to a point; but when anyone questions my responsibility by insinuating I live on taxpayers money, it irks the living daylights out of me. I PAY MY WAY!
My husband, as a WWII soldier also paid his way.

As to the other guy, how he can think so wrong about a just war or an unjust war is beyond me, except he is swallowing a lot of propaganda about our late Pope and the Holocaust.

Thanks for your encouragement, it calmed me down. God Bless

Posted by Sue (old) on Sunday, Nov, 4, 2012 10:09 PM (EDT):

@LEO: “Sue (old) you say your husband was in the US military. presumably you benefit from the Veterans Administration (ie taxpayer-funded) healthcare”

YOU ARE JUMPING TO CONCLUSION BUDDY & YOU HAVE GOTTEN THIS OLD LADY’S DANDER UP. For your information I DO NOT GET A DAMN THING FROM THE LOUSY GOVERNMENT, or from your taxes. You have the nerve to say I am being funded by taxpayers, when my husband fought in 5 battles with the 101st Airborne, No. Africa, Anzio, Bastogne [called the Battle of the Bulge] in Belgium, Southern France, other places in Italy, Germany, etc. He was in Chemical Warfare in Louisianna for 7 months dipping clothes in Carbon Tetrachloride to protect soldiers from mustard gas before he went into the Airborne. Carbon Tetrachloride stays in a persons system the rest of their lives. I notified the Government about that when my husband died in 1985 with Renal Cancer, but they no longer were checking this out. They just did not care. So again, I get nothing from the Veterans. He died at age 62 without ever enjoying a retirement. I was 58 and I have gotten along on my own and have been a completely responsible person for myself. I also get nothing from the Federal Gov. as I live on SS paid into by my husband who worked 35 yrs and the few yrs I worked. The government did not invest it as they were suppose to and put it in a general fund and probably uses the SS payments you put into it now for “Pork” by the Senators for their States, etc. You are the same type of person who would not want your tax money spent on the handicapped. So complain to them, not me.
As to Healthcare, I pay my Medicare payment, plus supplemental health insurance that costs me $240 per month, plus Part D for medicines, which I am not on any at the age of 85…lucky me! I also KNOW that the Pope did not justify the Iraq War. Remember, all those people in Washington are being paid by your tax money. Also my husband was sick with cancer 15 months and was offered Supplemental Soc. Security and he refused to take it. He was a very, very proud man and so am I.
@ Peter Blaise: “Hmm ... selective memory? The Pope was happy to let Nazi Germany * exterminate those nasty, Jesus-killing Jews.”
What a horrible thing to say!....Now you are insulting the Pope. YES, WWII WAS JUSTIFIED, ASK ANYONE ON THIS BLOG. ASK YOUR PRIEST, IF YOU ARE REALLY CATHOLIC. Ask any intellectual Catholic on this blog about the Nuns who hid the Jews in their Convents to save them. You are probably one of the dumb ones who don’t believe the Holocaust happened! Well my aunt’s neighbor was one of the victims and still had his number embedded on his arm. Also remember I was in Hi School at the time of the war and remember vividly what went on. You were probably my kids age who “never got to WWII in history class” Your generation just don’t know anything about it. Read, maybe you will then be enlightened. Check the internet and see how many American cemeteries are in Belgium, France, the Netherlands, Italy, Germany etc. We lost many, many soldiers and for what?, to save the people in Europe from the Nazi’s and to make a better United States for people like you. My English son-in-law’s father who was in WWII told me that they would have been under Nazi rule if it were not for the American soldiers and a Belgium friend also told me how grateful the Belgians are to us for they were very close to being under Nazi rule.

Posted by savvy on Sunday, Nov, 4, 2012 10:06 PM (EDT):

Angela,

Peter does not understand that there are women who simply do not think abortion is a civil right. They know it’s murder. That being said, I do not think anything is going to happen legally on this issue.

Posted by GregB on Sunday, Nov, 4, 2012 9:58 PM (EDT):

One thing that I have noticed about the life of Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. is how many secularists do their level best to remove all religiosity from Rev. King’s life. It is always Dr. King this and Dr. King that. Even religious publications will use the Dr. King identifier. His life has been thoroughly doctored. Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. is what is inscribed on his grave.

Posted by angela r. on Sunday, Nov, 4, 2012 9:50 PM (EDT):

Shut up, Peter. Stop spreading misinformation and lies.

Sue (old) I think it would be really cool to meet you some day. If it encourages you, I am one of a lot of young ladies who are mixing the success of the new with the sensibility of a few generations ago. My husband is an immigrant, and we are also of the “do it yoursel mindset. There are quite a number of us young ladies who are against abortion either because we have had one, have known someone who has had one or more, or maybe because we got lucky ans survived (botched abortion or a heroic angel changing the minds of our parents).

I keep seeing your calm posts in response to Peter Blaise. Have you always been so patient with blockheads or is this something you have practice at?

Posted by savvy on Sunday, Nov, 4, 2012 9:15 PM (EDT):

Peter,

You keep arguing for love, compassion, and peace. I asked you to define what you mean by these terms. You changed the subject instead.

Posted by savvy on Sunday, Nov, 4, 2012 9:13 PM (EDT):

“and I remember nothing about Jesus’s views on abortion, homosexuality, or contraception.”

Peter if you are truly Catholic, you will know that we do not subscribe to Sola Scriptura.

Remember the natural law?

I never said anything about legal abortion, gay marriage or contraception.

I did say that the mandate cannot force Catholic institutions to violate their conscience for something that is available elsewhere.

I also said, it is only a grass-roots movement that has changed views on abortion and will continue to do so. I do not see anything happening legally.

I also do not see anything wrong with arguments for traditional marriage, but I will agree that re-defining marriage has had consequences for people.

In Canada, for example even Catholic schools are being told they cannot teach their own views on homosexuality. It won’t be long before this happens elsewhere.

Social engineering has consequences.

There is also a difference between direct and indirect funding.

Posted by Peter Blaise on Sunday, Nov, 4, 2012 9:10 PM (EDT):

Seriously? Sue (old) wrote, “... No Pope would be against a Just War, such as WWII ...”

But, more importantly, are you therefore agreeing that the US war in Iraq was unjust, you know, that war the Republicans lied to get us into, and so now you are distancing yourself from them and voting Democrat this time, you know, are you therefore voting for the man who voted against the Iraq war?

Vote your beliefs for people who behave the way you believe is right, right?

I suggest no one’s views should reign over others—it’s a US Constitutional and Amendments thing.

Catholic wise, I can trace it to being inspired by stories of Jesus suggesting that we take responsibility for ourselves, and not see others as broken, so I extrapolate that others probably should take responsibility for themselves and not see me as broken.

Catholic versus civil government wise, I remember something about “... give unto Caesar ...”, and I remember nothing about Jesus’s views on abortion, homosexuality, or contraception.

So, if no one’s views should reign over others, what does that mean?

—If your view is that you don’t like abortion, don’t have one, but don’t take women’s tax money then turn around and spend that tax money denying that women’s civil and human rights to control her own body like everyone else just because your view is that you don’t like abortion.

—If your view is that you don’t like gay marriage, don’t have one, but don’t take gay people’s tax money then turn around and spend that money denying their civil and human rights to partner and build a family, take care of their children, and have the same legal and financial opportunities, resources, and respect as everyone else just because your view is that you you don’t like gay marriage.

—If your view is that you don’t like contraception, then don’t use contraception, but don’t take a woman’s tax money then turn around and spend that money denying women’s civil and human rights to spend their own hard earned pay and job benefits on anything and everything that other people have access to just because your view is that you don’t like contraception.

“But I don’t want to pay for other people’s sins,” some people have said.

Tough.

Try holding back payments on your own tax debt because you don’t like the deadly, expensive Iraq war the Republicans lied to get us into—we don’t have a line-item veto on how everyone’s tax monies are spent, and we have strict divisions preventing us from inflicting our own personal views over other people’s civil and human rights.

Let the US founding and defining documents guide our respect for each other’s civil and human rights:

—all are equal, endowed by their creator * with unalienable rights—life, liberty, pursuit of happiness—for the general welfare for ourselves and our posterity—equal protection and due process for all in it’s jurisdiction—of the people, by the people, for the people

... and so on.

So let’s stop looking for ways to separate one from the other, more equal from less equal—somewhere on that path we may find love and compassion, and maybe even peace.

==========
* “creator” = nature’s god, not man’s god, it’s a separation of church and state thing, good for both.

Posted by Leo on Sunday, Nov, 4, 2012 8:42 PM (EDT):

Obamacare will give over 70 million Americans healthcare - which is a right according to Catholic Social Teaching.

The HSS mandate attempts to provide a minimum standard of health coverage including contraception. This causes problems for Catholic employers. If this was a single-payer system, as preferred by the Catholic bishops, this would not be a problem. But because of opposition by Republican congress members the compromise was employer-insurance following the Romneycare model (which includes abortion - which Obamacare does not).

@Sue (old) you say your husband was in the US military. presumably you benefit from the Veterans Administration (ie taxpayer-funded) healthcare.

I find it hypocritical when congress members and senators benefit from taxpayer-funded healthcare (including contraception) but deny this to their constituents.

BTW the pope opposed the US war in Iraq.

Posted by Sue (old) on Sunday, Nov, 4, 2012 6:27 PM (EDT):

TA: You are right….everything comes down to responsibility. I was at Mass this morning and the priest did say, next Sun. 2nd collection will be for the Hurricane Sandy victims but with Tues.voting just around the corner, nothing is said abt. voting responsibly. {I know they won’t tell us how to vote but….}
I was disappointed and then when I approached my friend who will vote Obama/Abortion….there was no opening up her mind. {her remarks were “I don’t listen to the news, only once in the morning…I like to enjoy my life, not worry abt. what is going on”)...did not really know much abt. our diplomat who was killed…. Would not answer me when I suggested she watch EWTN or read the NCR on the internet. I am sure there are a lot of people like her. I don’t know for sure if Romney will make a good President, but I have read about both their backgrounds and Obama’s is a bit scary, when you read abt. all the people who influenced him in his early life. Today, people will not take the responsibility for their health, voting, you name it. You see, I am a ‘Big Depression’ child and I witnessed my immigrant parents and how hard they worked for their six children and putting food on the table, never asking or getting help from anyone. THEY ARE MY EXAMPLE OF INDEPENDENCE AND RESPONSIBILITY. Also I am a person who has nothing to hide…an open book…I wish our President and all of Washington were that way….but, I am not naive either. @Leo: No Pope would be against a Just War, such as WWII in which my husband fought with the 101st Airborne. There is no connection between that and abortion. Also isn’t the USCCB suing someone over the mandate in Obamacare?

Posted by savvy on Sunday, Nov, 4, 2012 5:53 PM (EDT):

TA,

Both parties have the same investors, which is why nothing is going to happen legally. Only the courts can act. The pro-life movement has made progress being a grassroots movement, changing minds and hearts. Continue with this, instead of constant fights over legal abortion, because nobody is going to act.

I thought the issue was how the mandate will affect Catholic institutions and religious freedom.

Posted by TA on Sunday, Nov, 4, 2012 5:36 PM (EDT):

@Sue, @Peter B, @ Jeff, and Leo and others..Thank you Tim for your article and Sue for your logic and authenticity as a Catholic woman, and thank you to the young Catholic woman and the female convert. I am weighing in as another woman.
Attitude is everything and the demand for the “right” to an abortion is the demand to choose NOT to take responsbility for the choices that precede the pregnancy. This new morality is about NOT TAKING PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY FOR ONE"S ACTIONS…whether rich or poor, educated ot undecuated, it would be ludicrous to suggest that anything less than 99% of the abortions performed are performed on women who opted to have sex knowing that sex can lead to pregnancy. Easier access to abortion (and contraception) has lead to INCREASED numbers of abortions and “unwanted pregnancies” and single parent families in financial distress (granted a correlation but one that can neither be ignored nor dismissed; correlations point us to causes, such as rationalizing, desensitization, and mental filtering) ....and Obama’s solution is to make this access quicker and easier by forcing persons who do not provide these “services” Access to abortion and contraception does not appear to be a problem for millions of women but self-control does and respect for life does, as it is for the men who lay with them and “fight” for their right to abort. This attitude puts self-indulgence in sex and abortion first, at the cost of a human life, which according to the Catholic Church is innocent (now in heaven) so why the concern?
Because the changing attitude has social costs so that unwanted (for various reasons including, sex selection, retardation…) human life has become disposable and now persons who cannot in good conscience be part of this, will be forced to with Obama’s proposals.
Obama’s platitudes are sentamentalisms that do not take positive steps to right the wrongs ..sorry Leo you are rationalizing the two evils—relativism is part of this whole problem and if Obama’s policies are closer why aren’t the Bishops supporting him?! Why does he scare them…as he legislates restrictions on the freedom to choose to be Catholic.
Leo and Peter did you notice that a number of women responding to this article are against abortion and do not want a “right” that costs a life?
In the last election, I admit, I fell into romanticism myself, with the thought of a “black” president; I hoped his platitudes would be more. Alas!

Posted by Leo on Sunday, Nov, 4, 2012 3:31 PM (EDT):

The disproportionately high number of black babies aborted is a special tragedy which demands explanation and remedy. I think it is to do with poverty (broadly understood) increasing the demand/pressure for abortion - what’s your explanation?.

I’m not sure you can blame President Obama for the black abortion rate - he has not sent FEMA to drag pregnant black women into abortion clinics - Chinese style. If you think he is to blame, please explain.

As a Catholic who tries to be consistently pro-life, the main question for me is which of the two candidates is likely to increase or decrease the number of abortions as well as other unjust deaths eg war, global poverty, human-caused climate change etc..

The problem is that neither candidate is consistently pro-life in both theory and practice.

Yes, it is true that Obama is pro-choice - but the powers of the POTUS in this area are limited by the Constitution. But Romney’s policies of reducing healthcare and welfare for women and children will probably increase the DEMAND for abortion (especially amongst the poorest) as I argue in my post of Nov 3, 2012 3:31. Romney’s policies will probably increase the number of deaths due to war, global poverty and human-caused climate change.

In almost all of the other policy differences between the candidates eg welfare, taxation, climate change, gun control, foreign policy - Obama’s policies are closer to those of the Pope and US Catholic Bishops than Romney.

Posted by savvy on Sunday, Nov, 4, 2012 2:52 PM (EDT):

Peter,

In this relative age, love and compassion also mean different things to different people. So why should your views which you have not reasoned out well, hold more weight than that of everybody else’s?

Posted by Jeff Johnson on Sunday, Nov, 4, 2012 12:44 PM (EDT):

This is a superb argument, grounded in historical fact, logic, the teachings of the Church, and delightfully, literature.

And we can count on two things never happening. The first is that the media might confront Barack Obama and ask him how he feels about the idea that over 40% of the 1.3 million children aborted in this troubled country each year are black. This was the precise dream of Margaret Sanger, and it is our worst nightmare here in the 21st century.

Posted by Peter Blaise on Sunday, Nov, 4, 2012 11:15 AM (EDT):

Tim Drake writes in the comments, “... My own family has never been more impoverished than we have been under the Obama presidency ...”

Great, that’s your lead, go with that.

And then do the requisite research to understand how you got that way, especially acknowledging the record, that many US families suffered from:

—the Bush tax cuts and two unfunded wars that emptied the Clinton surplus that belonged to all of we-the-people, and turned it over to the moneyed corporations

—the unregulated financial industries that ripped one trillion dollars of value from the middle and lower middle class

—unregulated corporations harvesting natural resources on the taxpayer dole, off-shore outsourcing, Walmarts putting employee health care costs on the local tax-base, and so on

Plus there’s your own personal responsibility to keep your work offering valuable to society: instead of writing tired, valueless blog regurgitations of other people’s (lack of) thinking (“radical feminism”, “redefining marriage”, other people’s out-of-context quoting of Martin Luther King, Jr), perhaps you could write an iPhone app, “WWJD What Would Jesus Do”, for people to carry in their pockets (I know of someone who made 2+ million dollars with an iPhone app), but make it really “WWJD What Would JESUS Do”, not “WWTPTRPATTEAPD What Would The Pope The Republican Party And The T.E.A. Party Do”.

However, your subsequent protestations that it’s all about your family’s economic state pulls the rug out from under the hyperbolic moralizing in your opening blog post, especially since, in that opening post, you show no compassion for anyone else’s family, especially the families that include women, gays, non-Christians, people who believe differently than you believe, and so on—after all, is it all about your own money, not Catholic morals?

Posted by NewCatholic08 on Sunday, Nov, 4, 2012 11:10 AM (EDT):

Tim Drake, excellent review of what Pres. Obama could have accomplished and did not. He does stand out as a father and member of an intact family. He could have called the attention of minority communities to the need for intact families as absolutely necessary for social stability but has never done so. As a new convert to Catholicism, the first thing that became real to me was awaking the next morning and being fully convinced of the sinfulness of abortion. As an evangelical I had never given it any more thought than that it was a tragic, but necessary evil about which only women had a right to comment. I am bewildered when I see Obama bumper stickers in Catholic Church parking lots and Obama lawn signs in the yards of Catholics. Those individuals strike me as being democrats first and Catholic Christians second. Not that the republican politicians hold policies that are any more consistent with Catholic teaching but the pro-abortion, pro-homosexual “marriage” and infringement upon conscience represented in the democrat platform is not only a violation of our first amendment rights but involves colluding with evil.

Posted by Peter Blaise on Sunday, Nov, 4, 2012 11:06 AM (EDT):

Earlier, WSquared wrote, “... the question is WDJD—what DID Jesus do, and what IS Jesus DOING Right Now? ... there is no real love or compassion without the truth ... admonishing sinners [is] one of the spiritual acts of mercy ... What does matter is what the Church actually teaches, and why ...
“

I beg to differ, because Jesus is none of our business; our only assignment is to love and love well.

If Jesus is truth, then trust in that, and don’t claim any truth of your own, any superior truth that you hold and wield over others; all we have is compassion, and let truth lie where it may.

We can use Jesus as an inspiration; the church and what it teaches does not matter at all, our behavior is all that matters, not our beliefs, not our assessment of others.

And, no, I’m not judging others for their judging others; I’m mirroring their behavior for them to see themselves—apparently an uncomfortable experience for them.

Why do we struggle so with compassion, deferring instead to the safety and self preservation of any so-called external authority to protect us from behaving with love, acceptance, and tolerance toward everyone.

Fascinating insights, though.

Posted by WSquared on Sunday, Nov, 4, 2012 12:26 AM (EDT):

Peter Blaise, re “WWJD?” we as Catholic Christians, we should all know that WWJD may mean well, but it’s ultimately the wrong question. Given our publicly professed belief in the Incarnation, the question is WDJD—what DID Jesus do, and what IS Jesus DOING Right Now? This much is actually apparent in and at Mass, unless of course we’re not paying attention. As for hoping that your fellow Catholics will vote for candidates who extend their own compassion and love, Catholics should also know that there is no real love or compassion without the truth. Love is not a feeling. And the last time I checked, Jesus DID say something about being the Way, the Truth, and the Life, as well as needing to remain in Him, else withering up and dying and being cast into the eternal fire will be our lot. I hope you mean the same Jesus as the Church teaches us to believe in when you judgmentally accuse other Catholics as being “judgmental” (a tactic whose real object is to deflect admonishing sinners—one of the spiritual acts of mercy—with emotional blackmail. And not only is this hypocritical, as others have rightly pointed out, it’s a cheap shot. And pointing out that “other Catholics disagree with you” doesn’t mean much. What does matter is what the Church actually teaches, and why).

Posted by Deb on Sunday, Nov, 4, 2012 12:12 AM (EDT):

Very good insight. Mr. Drake, you are right on, but one does need to be deeply rooted in true Christianity and a life of prayer to understand and accept your thoughts. I do sense that some commenters above have preconceived agendas and no Catholic spirituality to speak from.

Posted by Sue (old) on Saturday, Nov, 3, 2012 10:47 PM (EDT):

@Peter Blaise: A man IS just as much responsible for a woman getting pregnant. It takes two to tango, right? Also remember that by law, when/if that baby is born into this world, he has to contribute to its upbringing one way or another.
As to some Black leaders keeping racism alive, I was not thinking at all about any in the government. The benefit? Money/Power.
We are not ‘judging’ those who vote, but stating what the beliefs of the Catholic Church is. Also, I don’t research just democrats….I believe I stated that the morals were poor on both sides. My exact words were “As to morals of the two Parties, there is much to say about both Parties in that area.” So you misread me.
You said “And I would expect my fellow Catholics not to judge, period.” Yet, you judge the people on this blog. We can all have differences of opinion, that what makes the world go round, as the saying goes. By the way, I voted for John Kennedy…why?...because my neighbor told me her Minister said not to vote for him, for if he got in, the Pope would run this country. Maybe not a good reason for voting for him to some people, but it was for me.
I just looked up your Tea Party remark and you are right in that the audience applauded Ron Paul’s Libertarian remark. Remember you get the same thing when the Democrats are politicking in front of a mob of people. There are gross people in both parties also, when they get all pumped up by the politician.
Go on FACT CHECK and see the discrepancies of both Obama and Romney. It is politics and one has to learn how to get through the jungle.
You sound angry and I am sorry for that.

Posted by savvy on Saturday, Nov, 3, 2012 10:42 PM (EDT):

Howard. Thanks for the link. I will add this to it too on the Role and Freedom of Conscience

http://www.ourladyswarriors.org/articles/conscience.htm

Posted by Howard on Saturday, Nov, 3, 2012 10:20 PM (EDT):

Peter Blaise, you have not understood Christianity very well when you say, “And I would expect my fellow Catholics not to judge, period.” You are probably referring to Mathew 7 which speaks of condemnation. The judgment we are discussing here is discernment, in order to vote properly. Describing and evaluating a candidate’s or party’s position on the issues is necessary in order to vote responsibly. Under your meaning you also seem to exempt yourself.
-
“I would expect my fellow Catholics to vote for representatives who will extend their own compassion and love.”
-
More fuzzy hippy nonsense that sounds good with no concrete meaning. I am sure you will translate this into your choices for office. We are expected to reason out our decisions not offer some vague feeling of peace and love. The Catholic bishops have laid out the issues clearly from Catholic teaching below, this is what is expected of Catholics as it is expected that you will understand salvation correctly as taught by the bishops.
-
http://www.usccb.org/issues-and-action/faithful-citizenship/
-
I am gone tomorrow in order to finish my 40-Days-For-Life commitment. Good luck with the discussion.

Posted by Peter Blaise on Saturday, Nov, 3, 2012 9:23 PM (EDT):

Sue (old) wrote, “... As to abortion, how many babies are aborted without the consent of the father ...”

Er, once the sperm has left the man, it’s no longer in the man’s jurisdiction.

Why do people think the inside of another human being is their own jurisdiction to dictate power over?

Sue (old) wrote, “... The most racist people today are the Black leaders who try to keep racism alive for their own benefit ...”

Benefit? Wow, how many Black leaders do you know, which ones, and whom are they affecting, and how do they benefit, really?

Now, I know many moneyed white heterosexual male Christians who are racist, and have been searching for any excuse to call Obama anything despicable, yet they seem to benefit from and take advantage of everything Obama has done, and now suddenly salute Romney for Romney’s record and promises that match Obama point for point, whereas before the end of the Republican debates, they never thought once about Romney—go figure (and they have never known any Black leaders ever).

Wasn’t there a recent poll saying that now, a majority of white folk look down on black folk? Some anonymous Black leaders have that power, eh?

Other than John Conyers, Jr., U.S. Representative for Michigan’s 14th congressional district, serving since 1965 ...

Howard wrote, “... If you are not a Catholic then you cannot asses the two major parties as we can do – their platforms vs Church teachings. I don’t know why you would expect a Catholic to judge any other way ...”

As a Catholic, I disagree with you, and many other Catholics disagree with you, too.

And I have not backed down, only calling Sue (old) to be fair and notice that when she equivalently “researches” non-Democrats, she’ll find even more horrors against her chosen morals.

I don’t care; I call a politician a politician, and then I can’t be let down by them.

Great discussion, folks, keep it up, I’ll be back later.

Posted by Dan on Saturday, Nov, 3, 2012 8:16 PM (EDT):

So many of the President’s beliefs and practices are truly Anti-Christian!

Posted by savvy on Saturday, Nov, 3, 2012 7:04 PM (EDT):

The issue is the democrats have gone off the end with their obsession with everything death. But, focus on the imposed mandate, not on legal abortion or gay marriage. These cultural issues cannot be won legally. Only a grassroots movement can change mind and hearts and if Catholics and other Christians were truly living their faith this day would not be here.

Posted by Sue (old) on Saturday, Nov, 3, 2012 6:26 PM (EDT):

@Peter Blaise: You have taken everything I said wrong: ‘And let’s just hope people stop making decisions for others, such as treating women, people of color, gays, children, the poor, immigrants, and so on, as second class citizens to be harvested, discounted, and disposed of.”
For your information I was quoting a Bishop of the Catholic Church as to the evil on the Democrat platform. I happen to have two gay nephews on my side of the family and one on my husband’s side. They are wonderful human beings that I love as their Aunt. They have treated me, as well as their immediate family with respect and love. They are no different to us that the rest of the family. As a Catholic you should know that the Church also loves them but disapproves of their lifestyle. As to treating other people, my oldest sister was mentally disabled. I know how people treated them in the past and I give the Kennedy’s credit for what they did in that area. As to abortion, how many babies are aborted without the consent of the father. I don’t always “like” some things taught within the Catholic Church, but if you study it and read, you will see that everything they teach is for the benefit of humanity. As to women’s lib, my mother would be 127 yrs. old today and I assure you she had the most wisdom of anyone I know. At a young age, it was she who taught me not to be prejudiced against the rich (we were Great Depression poor) or ethnicity or race, long before the Sisters of Charity taught me that in grade school. By the way, my parents were immigrants. Not only was I brought up during the Great Depression but I was a teenager during WWII and I married a WWII Veteran. I was mature for my age because of what we went through. The most racist people today are the Black leaders who try to keep racism alive for their own benefit. Also I am not telling my friends “how” to vote but encouraging them to read the NCR or some other Catholic paper. Read, study and then make your decision. Also I am not saying the Democrats or the Republicans are evil…the Dem. Platform on abortion is. As to morals of the two Parties, there is much to say about both Parties in that area.
@Howard: I was born and raised in NYS about 20 miles north of NYC. [small town] I have lived in Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Virginia, North Carolina and now South Carolina near Fort Mill, York County which is not far from Charlotte. I did spend 30 yrs of my life in Wild, Wonderful, West Virginia ;o) and I liked it there and will be buried next to my husband there.

Posted by Howard on Saturday, Nov, 3, 2012 4:20 PM (EDT):

Peter Blaise, I am pleased that you have descided to back down from your comments. Going to “the evils” from “out number all others” and removing your admonition to “not make any judgements or comments” those you disagree with.
-
If you are not a Catholic then you cannot asses the two major parties as we can do – their platforms vs Church teachings. I don’t know why you would expect a Catholic to judge any other way.
-
“However, her insides are outside our civil and criminal jurisdiction.”
I don’t know where you get this it is not true. Take the Scott Peterson case in California in 2002. He was convicted of murdering an unborn baby (murder is an unlawful killing of a person) not property destruction. This crime was prosecuted by the state on the behalf of the child not at the request of the mother who was dead also.
-
You do not express your stand on the matter just telling us the obvious, what Roe vs Wade caused. Current law is changeable as it has changed to where we are now regarding abortion. In the Dred Scott decision of 1857 an African-American was considered property also.

Posted by Peter Blaise on Saturday, Nov, 3, 2012 3:55 PM (EDT):

Thanks for the dialog, Howard, and the lecture on how things look to you, but context is everything here:

I was responding to Sue who wrote that just a little Internet research would show anyone how evil Obama and the Democrats are.

So I countered that research will also reveal the evils of the Republicans and T.E.A. Party.

And maybe even more important evils of morality, a concern Sue expressed.

I’m not judging Republicans or Democrats.

I’, trying to accurately asses them as politicians.

Then my expectations are more in line with reality, and I do not expect any of them to be anything they are not.

Context is also in order regarding the jurisdiction comment about that new life being inside someone else’s body.

Of course we expect a pregnant woman to care for the life inside her.

However, her insides are outside our civil and criminal jurisdiction.

I’m not saying abortion doesn’t kill something.

I’m saying it’s outside the jurisdiction of the state.

Howard, we probably agree on all the underlying philosophy, with the exception on how to manifest ourselves in our society.

I suggest that we behave as we believe we should behave, that we not inflict our beliefs and judgements on others, and that we act charitably towards others without regard to prejudice.

And for me, that means not collecting women’s taxes, and people of color’s taxes, and gay people’s taxes, and the poor’s taxes, and immigrant’s taxes, and Moslem’s and atheist’s taxes, and so on, then turning around and using those taxes to treat those people unequal to moneyed white heterosexual Christian males.

Posted by Howard on Saturday, Nov, 3, 2012 3:14 PM (EDT):

Peter Blaise, you take me back to the nonsense of the 60’s where the leaders of the herd mentality told their followers all the behaviors and attitudes they didn’t like and how it was so not right then told his followers all of the behaviors and attitudes he approved of.
.
Let me quote you and tell me if this just B.S. or is it hypocrisy.

“and then not make any judgements or comments about other people’s behavior”
.
Then this tirade:
.
“…the moral hypocrisy especially of Republicans and T.E.A. Party politicians who outnumber all others in their divorces, affairs, abortions, scandals, secretive sexual behavior that they themselves…”
.
Also, “but inside someone else’s body is outside the state’s jurisdiction” an interesting dodge but not true. A living person is inside that body and we expect the mother to care for that person as faithfully as when that person is inside her house.

Posted by Peter Blaise on Saturday, Nov, 3, 2012 3:12 PM (EDT):

Earlier, Howard wrote, “... The chances are greater that a Democrat will support more immoral causes than will a Republican as shown by the party platforms ...”

Like taking care of the sick, the poor, the infirm, and so on?

I think you are way too selective in what you consider a moral cause.

Think, “... WWJD What Would Jesus Do? ...”, then go out and take care of the sick, the poor, the infirm, those in prison, and so on.

The uncharitableness of the opening post and responses in agreement amaze me—why is the word “Catholic” in the web page heading?

This is not the Catholicism I learned from the Sisters of Charity and the Sisters of the Divine Compassion.

Posted by Peter Blaise on Saturday, Nov, 3, 2012 3:04 PM (EDT):

Earlier, Howard wrote, “... The state has a responsibility for its citizens’ well-being ...”

The state has agreed-upon legal responsibility according to the US Constitution and Amendments to provide equal protection and due process to all within it’s jurisdiction ...

Why do people think women can only be thought of as vessels for men’s reproduction, as property for men to fight over, instead of equal citizens, with the same rights to life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, of self determination?

I look forward to anyone protesting over abortion to show their exhaustive efforts to prevent unwanted pregnancies, to prevent rape of any kind, to clean up our society to treat women as equal in all ways, to be hyper radical feminist, to create a safe environment for everyone where anyone’s gender is none of the state’s business, no “drop your pants, show me your genitals” before deciding on someone’s rights, privileges, and privacy.

I appreciate that you don’t like abortion, so don’t have one.

No go out and change this society so that no one can inflict unwanted pregnancies on anyone.

Try “... an ounce of prevention ...” instead of trying to pound your “cure” into the unwilling, including those of us Catholics who disagree with you.

Posted by Howard on Saturday, Nov, 3, 2012 2:55 PM (EDT):

Sue, I don’t know where you live now but I love Charleston.

Because there has been in our history only two parties that have run the country we have tended to be divided that way. Both parties have changed though (have since we were young) and it has become more important to study the issues (if only the major ones) more carefully. Catholics and all others need to SEPARATE the issues and judge a candidate based on the moral effect of each issue that candidate supports. The chances are greater that a Democrat will support more immoral causes than will a Republican as shown by the party platforms.

We are not trying to prove the perfection of one candidate over the other. I’m against voting the party only. That is lazy and leaves a person uninformed enough so a change of preferred party won’t happen. The world has changed, we must think or become subject to the totalitarian state that is coming at us.

Many Catholics use fuzzy thinking to lump everything together without consideration for importance of each part of social justice. Life is easy that way, you don’t have to take a stand and you can defy the Church. The only answer I can think of is to encourage your family and friends to weight each of the political issues and to not agree to committing a mortal sin by adopting the rule, “the means justifies the end”.

Earlier, Sue (old) wrote, “... As a Catholic she will not accept responsibility for her actions if she votes Dem ...”

Seriously? Voting Democratic is un-Catholic and a sign of irresponsibility?

Continuing, “... You would think that with all our technology, people would do more checking ... easy if you have a computer and know where to go on the internet ...”

... to see the hypocrisy of any politician, but more important, the moral hypocrisy especially of Republicans and T.E.A. Party politicians who outnumber all others in their divorces, affairs, abortions, scandals, secretive sexual behavior that they themselves had previously protested against as deviant, uncharitable un-christian greedy behavior getting rich at the expense of the less fortunate, and so on.

Sue, please make space in your heart and mind and society for people to make decisions unlike your own decisions, and that maybe, just maybe, they are good people who, just like you, probably want the best for everyone after all, and that reasonable, even responsible, minds may differ, and that research does not dictate nor predict the decisions people will make for themselves.

And let’s just hope people stop making decisions for others, such as treating women, people of color, gays, children, the poor, immigrants, and so on, as second class citizens to be harvested, discounted, and disposed of.

Thanks for the open dialog, everyone.

Posted by Peter Blaise on Saturday, Nov, 3, 2012 2:33 PM (EDT):

Earlier, Christina Sawchuk wrote, “... as Catholics and Christians need to love the sinner, hate the sin. Otherwise, we will have people calling us hypocrites ...”

I’ll never get this.

What do you care what other people think of you if whatever you do is the right thing for you to do?

And more important, why do you think that hating anything at all is the right thing to do?

Isn’t is easier to think. “... WWJD What Would Jesus Do? ...”, and then not make any judgements or comments about other people’s behavior, only do good and love good?

Posted by Sue (old) on Saturday, Nov, 3, 2012 2:14 PM (EDT):

@Howard, I agree with what you said and I realize that. What I am concerned about is that I have a few family & friends, who are Catholic and will vote Democrat, no matter what. I have only lived in S.C. for a year and have a friend who goes to the same church as myself. I gave her the article by Bishop
Paprocki, in which he said it is evil to vote the Dem. Platform because of the abortion issue. She read it and said “I thought they could not tell you how to vote”. I replied “the priest will not tell you over the Altar how to vote, but they can write about it”. She said, “well whatever people do is on their soul, not mine and they will have to answer for it.” As a Catholic she will not accept responsibility for her actions if she votes Dem. I am not saying Romney will be better or worse, we will never know. I come from 20 miles up the Hudson from NYC and if you type on your search line “Brinks Robbery, Nanuet, NY” You can read of the “weathermen underground” that Bill Ayers started. He was no longer connected with them at this time, but that is the kind of person he is. The woman who was imprisoned because of this robbery had a 2 yrs old son, who is now an adult, and Bill Ayers brought him up. That is just one person connected with him and there are more. You would think that with all our technology, people would do more checking….easy if you have a computer and know where to go on the internet. I am 85 and if I can do it most elderly should be able to. I personally, cannot fathom how anyone cannot believe that life begins as soon as the sperm fertilizes the ovum. It is not only simple to perceive, but it is also scientifically true. Young people today feel that “fetus” is not a “baby”. I can go on and on…... Thanks for sending me the two CCC72-73 teachings in writing…I shall copy them and give them to my friend. Maybe it will help her to understand the issue better.

Posted by Juliann on Saturday, Nov, 3, 2012 1:27 PM (EDT):

Good article, Mr. Drake. Keep up the good work. You give me hope amid all the darkness (very evident in some of the replies Register writers seem to attract). God bless you and your family.

Posted by Howard on Saturday, Nov, 3, 2012 1:12 PM (EDT):

Sue, the Catechism of the Catholic Church is the official teaching. If your pastor does not give a homily about abortion or contraception it still remains as follows:

CCC2273
“The moment a positive law deprives a category of human beings of the protection which civil legislation ought to accord them, the state is denying the equality of all before the law. When the state does not place its power at the service of the rights of each citizen, and in particular of the more vulnerable, the very foundations of a state based on law are undermined. As a consequence of the respect and protection which must be ensured for the unborn child from the moment of conception, the law must provide appropriate penal sanctions for every deliberate violation of the child’s rights.”

CCC2372
“The state has a responsibility for its citizens’ well-being. In this capacity it is legitimate for it to intervene to orient the demography of the population. This can be done by means of objective and respectful information, but certainly not by authoritarian, coercive measures. the state may not legitimately usurp the initiative of spouses, who have the primary responsibility for the procreation and education of their children.161 It is not authorized to intervene in this area with means contrary to the moral law.”

The former calls for protection of fellow human beings via the force of law – as the state protects the rest of us. This is a call for political action. Contraception is a personal responsibility and there is a call for the state not to be involved.

Posted by Zeke on Saturday, Nov, 3, 2012 1:08 PM (EDT):

Gosh Tim, were would I get the wild idea that you’re advocating Romney?
Please correct me - which third party candidate with a better civil rights record should I vote for? Will it be a coincidence that your answer would correspond with the candidate that wants to ban abortion in all cases?

Posted by Sue (old) on Saturday, Nov, 3, 2012 12:48 PM (EDT):

The gist of this blog is “if you are poor, you will have lots of children”. That is insulting…I assure you, poor people know where children come from, just as rich people do. Poor people are not ignorant. [it’s a matter of morals] Another problem is our country has become so secular, that even some high school kids are having sex and having abortions, as well as, MOST college kids. For them sex is just another activity. They don’t think ahead to the moral issues. Also don’t blame just Mormons for that nasty expression towards Blacks or plural marriage; that is not the beliefs of all Mormon denominations…I moved from the North to the South in 1962 and the South is really bad in the area of color. [though getting much better]
When voting for a President we should all check his background/associates and those he appoints to lead with him. [should I have used the him/her] ;o)
There are some he’d be better off without. [my opinion]
Martin Luther King has to be lauded for all he did in this area, yet today it is the Black Leaders who are keeping racism alive. All for political reasons and money. Most people don’t understand the Church’s belief on these issues, that is, the CC does not want abortion and contraceptives to be a political issue—lawfully enforced, that will go against the Catholic [and some Protestant] teachings. Not all Catholics read the NCR or other Catholic newspapers, and nothing is said at Mass on Sunday.

Posted by Christina Sawchuk on Saturday, Nov, 3, 2012 11:17 AM (EDT):

As a teenaged Canadian, I have no say in the matter of which man wins or loses. All that I can say about this election is that we, as Catholics and Christians need to love the sinner, hate the sin. Otherwise, we will have people calling us hypocrites.

Posted by Howard on Saturday, Nov, 3, 2012 11:00 AM (EDT):

I am amazed at the rationalizing that leads to a belief that B.O. can in any way be considered a man that promotes Christian principles. He has a broad smile and can speak using larger words that most. He has also taken the lead in the secularization of our society by supporting the reduction of the role of Christian institutions in society and increasing government control of moral life, that can only be seen as totalitarianism. Governments have not had a good track record in this area – witness the entire 20th century.

What Catholics believe as individuals is irrelevant and carries no more weight than anyone else, unless they profess Church teaching. Christ did not say “vote for me”; he said “follow me”.

Posted by dontex on Saturday, Nov, 3, 2012 9:44 AM (EDT):

Those who consider Obama a “pro-life” person have turned a blind eye to his voting record and public statements.
Obama trumpets his support of same-sex marriage as a “civil rights” issue. The most basic civil right is the right to life and Obama actively supports the destruction of pre-born persons.
Obama is a wolf in sheep’s clothing and he is leading this country down the path to destruction.

Posted by Leo on Saturday, Nov, 3, 2012 9:35 AM (EDT):

The following aspects of poverty will probably increase demand for abortion - healthcare and welfare for women and children.

Both of these have been promised as areas for cuts by Romney.

Posted by T. Drake on Saturday, Nov, 3, 2012 6:14 AM (EDT):

Zeke,
If you re-read the opinion piece, you’ll note that I do not “advocate voting for a Mormon,” but suggest reasons a voter might vote against the president. There are more than two candidates on the ballot.

Leo,
Why do you assume that poverty will increase under anyone other than Obama? My own family has never been more impoverished than we have been under the Obama presidency. I tire of the myth that the president is middle class and therefore cares more for the poor. Supporting the killing of their unborn children hardly constitutes “care.” And he’s hardly middle class. According to Business Insider the president’s net worth was somewhere between $2.8 and $11.8 million in 2010.

Peter,
To suggest that the president wasn’t considered a Civil Rights leader is wrong. He was a civil rights attorney. According to a ranking of the top civil rights leaders of the 21st century (http://newsone.com/1102975/top-15-civil-rights-leaders-of-the-21st-century/), the president is listed as #1. When he spoke to the NAACP (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CW1qo1jdEVI), he traced his rise to power to the vigor and valor of black civil rights leaders.

Posted by Leo on Saturday, Nov, 3, 2012 4:31 AM (EDT):

Why do US black women have a disproportionately high number of abortions?

Are black women more evil?

Or is it to do with black women being disproportionately poor?

Poverty as lack of affordable healthcare (including contraception - not everyone is a Catholic). In free-market medical care, paying for abortion is cheaper than paying for childbirth and confinement. Ryan’s welfare cuts will mean less support for single mothers. Poorer education mean fewer kids from poor families can break out of poverty.

Those who are genuinely and consistently pro-life rather than simply anti-abortion will vote for Obama rather than Romney. If you want to reduce the total number of abortions you should vote Obama.

Let me explain.

The number of abortions is affected both by the SUPPLY (availability) and DEMAND (pressures for abortion).

The ideal candidate will reduce both. Buy neither will do both - so choose the lesser evil - the one who will result in fewer abortions.

Romney might be able to reduce the SUPPLY of legal abortion IF he does not flip-flop again on abortion, AND if a pro-Roe justice dies or chooses to retire AND if he nominates a genuinely pro-life candidate (rather than an opportunist pro-lifer like himself) AND if the Senate does not “Bork” that candidate AND if the issue arises in the SCOTUS.

If Roe vs Wade is overturned the question goes back to the individual states. No doubt there will be “abortion tourism” and the import of RU48 on the internet to some states. Even if there were a constitutional amendment I doubt it would last as long as alcohol prohibition did, simply because so man people believe it is their moral right.

We need to reduce the DEMAND for abortion by eg education (moral and biological), free/affordable family planning (natural and artificial - not everyone is a Catholic), free/affordable childbirth, free/affordable healthcare for pregnant women and children, welfare support for children, good education, jobs.

Romneycare (which includes abortion) (Obamacare is a watered-down Romneycare) has resulted in a lowering of the abortion rate in that state.

The poverty of the poorest (including black people who are disproportionately poor in the US) will increase under Romney. This will lead to an increased DEMAND for abortion - legal or otherwise.

I believe that the increased demand for abortion (caused by reduced healthcare, welfare and education spending) under Romney will increase the number of abortions in the US.

Other Catholics who believe this:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/charles-j-reid-jr/catholic-pro-life-and-voting-for-barack-obama_b_2024427.html

You write, “... President Obama who has betrayed the very movement that so many thought he would lead ...”—are you insane?

No one thought Barack Obama was a civil rights movement leader.

We all thought he was a post-civil-rights-movement colorless person who had way more on the ball than the alternative: McCain.

I believe that Barack Obama is shocked at the rampant racism motivating those who attack him and who hide their racism behind any convenient subterfuge, and he is governing in spite of it, pretending to ignore it, taking the high road, rather than calling it out—you know who they are, those in power who immediately set about trying to make him a one-term president even before he took office.

You mistake your own beliefs for the actual behavior of your fellow Catholics.

Catholics have abortions and use contraceptives.

Jesus was a radical feminist—we all should be.

Catholics are homosexual—Paul was a suffering homosexual who neither knew Jesus, nor were homosexuals condemned by Jesus.

I’d say that you have conflated two unrelated things:

—freedom of personal religious beliefs,

versus

—public civil rights for everyone.

You are more like the Catholic Virginia Governor who insists on inflicting his own personal religious beliefs over everyone in the state, totally misunderstanding the purpose of personal belief, than you are like the Catholic President (or Vice President) who understood the difference between personal and public, between religion and civil rights.

The majority of so-called Christians voting against Barack Obama and for the Koch brother’s Tea Party and for moneyed corporate elitism are motivated more by racism than by so-calleed Christianity.

You write, “... When Martin Luther King, Jr. confronted racism in the white church in the South ...”

And that’s the point.

Barack Obama is not a civil right movement leader, and never was.

Barack Obama has in public service in the Legislative and Executive branches of our self governance, not in the “church of the South”.

The commenting rules here are equally full of hypocrisy: “... For best formatting, please limit your response to one paragraph and don’t hit “enter” to force line breaks ...” ... yet I notice that the article is 20 paragraphs, each separated by line breaks, why should we readers be limited to responding to only one of the writer’s points?

Should we write 20 comments instead?

Should I go on and mention the facts, that Planned Parenthood prevents more abortions than anyone, that pay is pay regardless of an employer’s discomfort with an employee’s use of their pay to purchase contraceptives, that gays are our siblings, our parents, our children, our co-workers, our customers, our bosses, our service providers, our ministers, our doctors, our lawyers, our military, our selves?

I could go on, for 20 or more paragraphs, on how neither women, nor gays, nor people of color, nor the poor, nor the middle class(!), should be second class citizens, ever, please.

Is formatting more important than content?

Is the format of the color of Barack Obama’s skin more important to you than the content of his character as a civil servant for all of we the people, not just of hypocritical racist white Christians?

Posted by Zeke on Saturday, Nov, 3, 2012 2:14 AM (EDT):

Only someone so blinded by religious intolerance could label advocating equal rights for homosexuals as betraying the civil rights movement. And quote MLK to advocate voting for a Mormon who belives that the African race are the descendents of Cain, cursed by god with black skin. Sad, unChristian, and unAmerican.

Posted by chas holman on Friday, Nov, 2, 2012 11:47 PM (EDT):

Nonsense.. he’s just a man and he can only do so much so quickly. And if he did push more into civil rights he would have every radical screaming he did the wrong thing.

Besides, he spoke openly about gay marriage.. that was a huge civil rights boost for those folks..

I am so enthralled at the push to get the Christian man out of office and replace him with the secretive Mormon..

Oh well.. good people watched Jesus be crucified and never said a word either..

Join the Discussion

We encourage a lively and honest discussion of our content. We ask that charity guide your words.
By submitting this form, you are agreeing to our discussion guidelines.
Comments are published at our discretion. We won't publish comments that lack charity, are off topic, or are more than 400 words.
Thank you for keeping this forum thoughtful and respectful.

Tim Drake is an award-winning writer and former journalist and radio host with the National Catholic Register/EWTN. He currently serves as New Evangelization Coordinator for the Holdingford Area Catholic Community in the Diocese of St. Cloud, Minnesota. He resides with his wife and five children in St. Joseph, Minn.